Prevalence of Postprostatectomy Incontinence Requiring Anti-incontinence Surgery After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis

Overview

Journal Int Neurourol J

Date 2021 Mar 11

PMID 33705635

Citations 3

Authors

Jae Heon Kim

In Gab Jeong

Yash S Khandwala

Tina Hernandez-Boussard

James D Brooks

Benjamin I Chung

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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%).

Conclusion: 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.

Citing Articles

[Structural health care reality in the surgical treatment of male stress incontinence in Germany].

Menzel V, Bauer R, Grabbert M, Putz J, Eisenmenger N, Flegar L Urologie. 2024; 63(7):673-680.

PMID: 38811419 PMC: 11219372. DOI: 10.1007/s00120-024-02360-0.

Insufficient utilization of care in male incontinence surgery: health care reality in Germany from 2006 to 2020 and a systematic review of the international literature.

Baunacke M, Abbate E, Eisenmenger N, Witzsch U, Borkowetz A, Huber J World J Urol. 2023; 41(7):1813-1819.

PMID: 37261500 PMC: 10233526. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-023-04433-9.

Efficacy of surgical treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Park J, Hong Y, Kwon A, Shim S, Kim J Int J Surg. 2023; 109(3):401-411.

PMID: 36912884 PMC: 10389629. DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000000170.

References

Sharma V, Meeks J . Open conversion during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy: impact on perioperative complications and predictors from national data. J Urol. 2014; 192(6):1657-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.06.029. View

Barry M, Gallagher P, Skinner J, Fowler Jr F . Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicare-age men. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(5):513-8. PMC: 3295553. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.36.8621. View

Lowrance W, Elkin E, Jacks L, Yee D, Jang T, Laudone V . Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments: a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes. J Urol. 2010; 183(4):1366-72. PMC: 2866516. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.021. View

ONeil B, Koyama T, Alvarez J, Conwill R, Albertsen P, Cooperberg M . The Comparative Harms of Open and Robotic Prostatectomy in Population Based Samples. J Urol. 2015; 195(2):321-9. PMC: 4916911. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.092. View

Hu J, Gu X, Lipsitz S, Barry M, DAmico A, Weinberg A . Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA. 2009; 302(14):1557-64. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1451. View

Cho D, Choo S, Kim S, Shim K, Park S, Kim S . Postoperative membranous urethral length is the single most important surgical factor predicting recovery of postoperative urinary continence. Urol Oncol. 2020; 38(12):930.e7-930.e12. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2020.07.024. View

Harris M . The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy: an outcomes-based evolution. Eur Urol. 2006; 52(1):81-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.041. View

Penson D, Feng Z, Kuniyuki A, McClerran D, Albertsen P, Deapen D . General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer: what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(6):1147-54. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.07.139. View

Sujenthiran A, Nossiter J, Parry M, Charman S, Aggarwal A, Payne H . National cohort study comparing severe medium-term urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2017; 121(3):445-452. PMC: 5873443. DOI: 10.1111/bju.14054. View

10.

Bauer R, Gozzi C, Hubner W, Nitti V, Novara G, Peterson A . Contemporary management of postprostatectomy incontinence. Eur Urol. 2011; 59(6):985-96. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.020. View

11.

Loughlin K, Prasad M . Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a confluence of 3 factors. J Urol. 2010; 183(3):871-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.11.011. View

12.

Holm H, Fossa S, Hedlund H, Schultz A, Dahl A . How should continence and incontinence after radical prostatectomy be evaluated? A prospective study of patient ratings and changes with time. J Urol. 2014; 192(4):1155-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.113. View

13.

El-Hakim A, Leung R, Tewari A . Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2005; 6(1):11-20. DOI: 10.1586/14737140.6.1.11. View

14.

Yamamoto S, Kawakami S, Yonese J, Fujii Y, Urakami S, Kitsukawa 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. 2013; 19(6):1085-91. DOI: 10.1007/s10147-013-0654-2. View

15.

Menon M, Dalela D, Jamil M, Diaz M, Tallman C, Abdollah F . Functional Recovery, Oncologic Outcomes and Postoperative Complications after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: An Evidence-Based Analysis Comparing the Retzius Sparing and Standard Approaches. J Urol. 2017; 199(5):1210-1217. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2017.11.115. View

16.

Trofimenko V, Myers J, Brant W . Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: How Common and Bothersome Is It Really?. Sex Med Rev. 2017; 5(4):536-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2017.05.001. View

17.

Huang X, Wang L, Zheng X, Wang X . Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2016; 31(3):1045-1060. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-5125-1. View

18.

Stanford J, Feng Z, Hamilton A, Gilliland F, Stephenson R, Eley J . Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000; 283(3):354-60. DOI: 10.1001/jama.283.3.354. View

19.

Schroeck F, Krupski T, Sun L, Albala D, Price M, Polascik T . Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008; 54(4):785-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.063. View

20.

Kim P, Pinheiro L, Atoria C, Eastham J, Sandhu J, Elkin E . Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis. J Urol. 2012; 189(2):602-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.246. View