Cargando…

Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the continence rate following reconstruction of the posterior urethral plate in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 50 men with clinically localized prostate cancer who underw...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kim, Isaac Yi, Hwang, Eun A, Mmeje, Chinedu, Ercolani, Matthew, Lee, Dong Hyeon
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2852800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20376897
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2010.51.3.427
_version_ 1782179988738408448
author Kim, Isaac Yi
Hwang, Eun A
Mmeje, Chinedu
Ercolani, Matthew
Lee, Dong Hyeon
author_facet Kim, Isaac Yi
Hwang, Eun A
Mmeje, Chinedu
Ercolani, Matthew
Lee, Dong Hyeon
author_sort Kim, Isaac Yi
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the continence rate following reconstruction of the posterior urethral plate in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 50 men with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent RLRP was carried out. Twenty-five patients underwent RLRP using the reconstruction of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter (Rocco repair). Results of 25 consecutive patients who underwent RLRP prior to the implementation of the Rocco repair were used as the control. Continence was assessed at 7, 30, 90, and 180 days following foley catheter removal using the EPIC questionnaire as well as a follow-up interview with the surgeon. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the patient demographics. At 7 days, the Rocco experimental group had a continence rate of 19% vs. 38.1% in the non-Rocco control group (p = 0.306). At 30 days, the continence rate in the Rocco group was 76.2% vs. 71.4% in the non-Rocco group (p = 1). At 90 days, the values were 88% vs. 80% (p = 0.718), respectively. At 180 days, the pad-free rate was 96% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Rocco repair offers no significant advantage in the time to recovery of continence following RLRP when continence is defined as the use of zero pads per day. On the other hand, Rocco repair was associated with increased incidence of urinary retention requiring prolonged foley catheter placement.
format Text
id pubmed-2852800
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Yonsei University College of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28528002010-05-01 Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy Kim, Isaac Yi Hwang, Eun A Mmeje, Chinedu Ercolani, Matthew Lee, Dong Hyeon Yonsei Med J Original Article PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the continence rate following reconstruction of the posterior urethral plate in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RLRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 50 men with clinically localized prostate cancer who underwent RLRP was carried out. Twenty-five patients underwent RLRP using the reconstruction of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter (Rocco repair). Results of 25 consecutive patients who underwent RLRP prior to the implementation of the Rocco repair were used as the control. Continence was assessed at 7, 30, 90, and 180 days following foley catheter removal using the EPIC questionnaire as well as a follow-up interview with the surgeon. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in any of the patient demographics. At 7 days, the Rocco experimental group had a continence rate of 19% vs. 38.1% in the non-Rocco control group (p = 0.306). At 30 days, the continence rate in the Rocco group was 76.2% vs. 71.4% in the non-Rocco group (p = 1). At 90 days, the values were 88% vs. 80% (p = 0.718), respectively. At 180 days, the pad-free rate was 96% in both groups. CONCLUSION: Rocco repair offers no significant advantage in the time to recovery of continence following RLRP when continence is defined as the use of zero pads per day. On the other hand, Rocco repair was associated with increased incidence of urinary retention requiring prolonged foley catheter placement. Yonsei University College of Medicine 2010-05-01 2010-04-08 /pmc/articles/PMC2852800/ /pubmed/20376897 http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2010.51.3.427 Text en © Copyright: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2010 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kim, Isaac Yi
Hwang, Eun A
Mmeje, Chinedu
Ercolani, Matthew
Lee, Dong Hyeon
Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
title Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
title_full Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
title_fullStr Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
title_full_unstemmed Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
title_short Impact of Posterior Urethral Plate Repair on Continence Following Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
title_sort impact of posterior urethral plate repair on continence following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2852800/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20376897
http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2010.51.3.427
work_keys_str_mv AT kimisaacyi impactofposteriorurethralplaterepaironcontinencefollowingrobotassistedlaparoscopicradicalprostatectomy
AT hwangeuna impactofposteriorurethralplaterepaironcontinencefollowingrobotassistedlaparoscopicradicalprostatectomy
AT mmejechinedu impactofposteriorurethralplaterepaironcontinencefollowingrobotassistedlaparoscopicradicalprostatectomy
AT ercolanimatthew impactofposteriorurethralplaterepaironcontinencefollowingrobotassistedlaparoscopicradicalprostatectomy
AT leedonghyeon impactofposteriorurethralplaterepaironcontinencefollowingrobotassistedlaparoscopicradicalprostatectomy