4.6 Article

Nerve-sparing approach during radical prostatectomy is strongly associated with the rate of postoperative urinary continence recovery

期刊

BJU INTERNATIONAL
卷 111, 期 5, 页码 717-722

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11315.x

关键词

prostate cancer; radical prostatectomy; nerve-sparing; urinary continence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To demonstrate that nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (NSRP) is associated with higher rates of urinary continence (UC) recovery compared with non-nerve-sparing procedures in patients with surgically treated organ-confined prostate cancer. Patients and Methods The study included 1249 patients treated with radical prostatectomy between 2003 and 2010. Patients were divided into three preoperative risk groups: low (PSA < 10 ng/mL, cT1, biopsy Gleason sum <= 6), high (cT3 or biopsy Gleason 8-10 or PSA > 20 ng/mL) and intermediate (all the remaining). Postoperative UC recovery was defined as the absence of any protection device. The association between nerve-sparing status and UC recovery was assessed in univariable and multivariable Cox regression analyses after accounting for age at surgery, Charlson Comorbidity Index and preoperative risk group. Results At a mean follow-up of 42.2 months (range 1-78), 993 patients (79.5%) recovered UC. Overall, UC recovery rate at 1 and 2 years was 76% and 79%, respectively. On univariable Cox regression analysis, age at surgery, preoperative risk group, medical comorbidities and nerve-sparing status were significantly associated with UC recovery (all P <= 0.001). On multivariable analysis, age, risk group and nerve-sparing status were also independently associated with UC recovery (all P < 0.003). Patients treated with bilateral NSRP had a 1.8-fold higher chance of full UC recovery. Conclusions Patients treated with bilateral NSRP have significantly higher chances of recovering full continence. Therefore, when oncologically and technically feasible, a nerve-sparing procedure should be attempted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据