Prevalence of Postprostatectomy Incontinence Requiring Antiincontinence Surgery After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and State Inpatient Databases, 2008 to 2010, radical prostatectomy (RP) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 procedure codes and among this cohort, PI was identified also using ICD-9/10 codes. Surgical approaches included minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) versus open (retropubic or perineal) RP. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of surgery for PI. The secondary outcome was the association of PI requiring anti-incontinence surgery with the surgical approach for RP. Results: Among the 13,535 patients initially included in the study (mean age, 63.3 years), 6,932 (51.2%) underwent open RP and 6,603 (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive RP. The overall prevalence of surgical procedures for PI during the observation period among the all patients who had received RP was 3.3%. The rate of PI surgery for patients receiving minimally invasive surgery was higher than that for patients receiving open surgery (4.8% vs. 3.0%; risk difference, 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%–3.4%). The adjusted prevalence of PI surgery for patients who had undergone laparoscopic RP was higher than that for those with retropubic RP (8.6% vs. 3.7%). Conclusions: Among patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer, the prevalence of PI surgery is not negligible. Patients undergoing minimally invasive RP had higher adjusted rates for PI surgery compared to open approaches, which was attributed to high rate of PI surgery following laparoscopic approach and low rate of PI surgery following perineal approach. More studies are needed to establish strategies to reduce the rate of PI surgery after RP.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and State Inpatient Databases, 2008 to 2010, radical prostatectomy (RP) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 procedure codes and among this cohort, PI was identified also using ICD-9/10 codes. Surgical approaches included minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) versus open (retropubic or perineal) RP. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of surgery for PI. The secondary outcome was the association of PI requiring anti-incontinence surgery with the surgical approach for RP. Results: Among the 13,535 patients initially included in the study (mean age, 63.3 years), 6,932 (51.2%) underwent open RP and 6,603 (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive RP. The overall prevalence of surgical procedures for PI during the observation period among the all patients who had received RP was 3.3%. The rate of PI surgery for patients receiving minimally invasive surgery was higher than that for patients receiving open surgery (4.8% vs. 3.0%; risk difference, 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%–3.4%). The adjusted prevalence of PI surgery for patients who had undergone laparoscopic RP was higher than that for those with retropubic RP (8.6% vs. 3.7%). Conclusions: Among patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer, the prevalence of PI surgery is not negligible. Patients undergoing minimally invasive RP had higher adjusted rates for PI surgery compared to open approaches, which was attributed to high rate of PI surgery following laparoscopic approach and low rate of PI surgery following perineal approach. More studies are needed to establish strategies to reduce the rate of PI surgery after RP.
참고문헌 (27)
- Yamamoto S, "Long-term oncological outcome in men with T3 prostate cancer : radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiation therapy at a single institution", Int J Clin Oncol, 19, pp.1085~1091 (2014)
- Freedland SJ, "Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy", JAMA, 294, pp.433~439 (2005)
- Loughlin KR, "Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence : a confluence of 3 factors", J Urol, 183, pp.871~877 (2010)
- Penson DF, "General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer : what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study", J Clin Oncol, 21, pp.1147~1154 (2003)
- Majoros A, "Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy(prospective urodynamic study)", Neurourol Urodyn, 25, pp.2~7 (2006)
- Trofimenko V, "Post-prostatectomy incontinence : how common and bothersome is it really", Sex Med Rev, 5, pp.536~543 (2017)
- Ficarra V, "Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy", Eur Urol, 62, pp.405~417 (2012)
- Tienza A, "Prevalence analysis of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy and influential preoperative factors in a single institution", Aging Male, 21, pp.24~30 (2018)
- Bauer RM, "Contemporary management of postprostatectomy incontinence", Eur Urol, 59, pp.985~996 (2011)
- Holm HV, "How should continence and incontinence after radical prostatectomy be evaluated? A prospective study of patient ratings and changes with time", J Urol, 192, pp.1155~1161 (2014)
- Stanford JL, "Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer : the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study", JAMA, 283, pp.354~360 (2000)
- Kim PH, "Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy : a population based analysis", J Urol, 189, pp.602~608 (2013)
- Lowrance WT, "Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments : a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes", J Urol, 183, pp.1366~1372 (2010)
- Sacco E, "Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up", BJU Int, 97, pp.1234~1241 (2006)
- Sujenthiran A, "National cohort study comparing severe mediumterm urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy", BJU Int, 121, pp.445~452 (2018)
- El-Hakim A, "Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature", Expert Rev Anticancer Ther, 6, pp.11~20 (2006)
- Barry MJ, "Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicareage men", J Clin Oncol, 30, pp.513~518 (2012)
- Haglind E, "Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial", Eur Urol, 68, pp.216~225 (2015)
- O’Neil B, "The comparative harms of open and robotic prostatectomy in population based samples", J Urol, 195, pp.321~329 (2016)
- Hu JC, "Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy", JAMA, 302, pp.1557~1564 (2009)
- Huang X, "Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis", Surg Endosc, 31, pp.1045~1060 (2017)
- Bishoff JT, "Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population", J Urol, 160, pp.454~458 (1998)
- Harris MJ, "The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy : an outcomes-based evolution", Eur Urol, 52, pp.81~88 (2007)
- Menon M, "Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidencebased analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches", J Uro, 199, pp.1210~1217 (2018)
- Schroeck FR, "Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy", Eur Urol, 54, pp.785~793 (2008)
- Sharma V, "Open conversion during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy : impact on perioperative complications and predictors from national data", J Urol, 192, pp.1657~1662 (2014)
- Cho DS, "Postoperative membranous urethral length is the single most important surgical factor predicting recovery of postoperative urinary continence", Urol Oncol, 38, pp.930~ (2020)