Evidence Hub

Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: surgical technique historic evolution and present functional outcomes

Delgado Oliva FJ, Caballero Romeo JP, García Serrado D, Prieto Chaparro L, Carro Rubias C, Chillón Sempere S, De Paz Cruz L, De Nova Sánchez E

Archivos espanoles de urologia, 2009

137 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: In patients with localized prostate cancer and life expectancy longer than 10 years, radical prostatectomy (RP) remains the Gold Standard. Radical surgery must achieve good oncological and functional outcomes with early continence and potency. In expert hands RP offers very low post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence rates. To analyze functional outcomes regarding urinary incontinence (UI) after RP in our centre in the last ten years.

METHODS: We have performed a retrospective study of the 137 patients who had a radical prostatectomy (open retropubic or laparoscopic) on the General University Hospital of Elche from 1998 to 2008. Two patient groups were analyzed, patients who had surgery from 1998 to 2003, and those who had surgery from 2004 to 2008. Stress UI rates after RP were determined in both groups at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months following surgery with patient pad day usage. Urethrovesical anastomosis strictures were also analyzed in each group and their resolution.

RESULTS: 15 patients were excluded from the initial 137 because cT3 stage was detected, remaining 122 prostatectomies with <cT2c stage in the study. Average age was 67 years (50-74). Mean preoperative PSA was 8.1 ng/ml (4.5-25). Biopsy Gleason score was < 6 in 70% (85/122) and 7-8 in 30 % (37/122). In the period between 1998 and 2003, 49 patients underwent surgery and results were: initially continent 28.5% (14/49), continent after one month: 6.1% (3/49), at 3 months: 12.2% (6/49), six months 8.1% (…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 137 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free