4.6 Article

Bladder and urethral sphincter function after radical retropubic prostatectomy: A prospective long-term study

期刊

EUROPEAN UROLOGY
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 657-664

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.10.054

关键词

radical retropubic; prostatectomy; urodynamics; voiding dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: in a prospective study we analysed the 3-yr results of the effects of radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) on detrusor and sphincter function by comparing urodynamic status preoperatively with that during longitudinal follow-up. Methods. Fifty-four consecutive patients underwent urodynamics with pressure flow studies and Valsalva leak point pressure measurements 3-7 d before RRP (baseline), and then 8 mo after surgery. Thirty-two patients were studied again 3 yr later. We analysed bladder compliance, detrusor overactivity (DO), detrusor contractility, and intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). Results: There was a significant increase in the number of patients with reduced bladder compliance at the 8-mo follow-up. De novo reduced bladder compliance was detected in 32.3% of patients and persisted in 28.1% at the 36-mo follow-up. De novo detrusor hypocontractility was observed in 51% of patients at 8 mo (p < 0.05) and persisted in 25% of cases 3 yr later. No patients showed any postvoid residual volume. The associations between detrusor hypocontractility with DO and between detrusor hypocontractility with ISD were detected in 76.2% and 44% of patients, respectively, at 8 mo, and in 25% and in 34% of cases, respectively, at 36 mo of follow-up (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001). Conclusions: Following RRP detrusor hypocontractility, decreased bladder compliance, and ISD represent de novo dysfunction probably due to bladder denervation during surgery. They become established conditions over time in about 30% of patients. Nevertheless, they do not produce voiding symptoms because patients develop new voiding behaviours. (C) 2007 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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