Literature DB >> 10719937

Comparison of patients' and physicians' rating of urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy.

J T Wei1, J E Montie.   

Abstract

One of the most important endpoints following a radical prostatectomy focuses on the recovery of urinary continence; however, the reported incontinence rates have been quite variable. In men with prostate cancer, it has been found that the physician's assessment of a patient's symptom does not correlate with the patient's own assessment. To further explore the differences in the reported outcomes between physicians and patients, we evaluated the assessment of urinary incontinence in a cohort of men undergoing radical prostatectomy. A total of 145 individuals completed a brief urinary continence questionnaire postoperatively at the 1-year anniversary of their operation and also had the physicians' assessment of incontinence documented in the medical record. Patient-reported incontinence rates varied from 13% to 65% depending on the definition of incontinence applied and the greatest agreement was seen when the physicians' assessment of incontinence was compared with the patient's report of pad use and urinary bother. These comparisons resulted in only moderate to good levels of agreement, which suggests that a more reliable and accurate means to evaluate urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy needs to be developed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10719937

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Semin Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1081-0943


  11 in total

1.  Open versus laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2005

Review 2.  Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery.

Authors:  Laercio A Silva; Régis B Andriolo; Álvaro N Atallah; Edina M K da Silva
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-09-27

Review 3.  Preserving continence during robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Thomas E Ahlering; Adam Gordon; Blanca Morales; Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Patient-reported recovery after abdominal and pelvic surgery using the Convalescence and Recovery Evaluation (CARE): implications for measuring the impact of surgical processes of care and innovation.

Authors:  Ryan C Hedgepeth; J Stuart Wolf; Rodney L Dunn; John T Wei; Brent K Hollenbeck
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2009-08-05       Impact factor: 2.058

5.  Management of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Authors:  Herbert Lepor
Journal:  Rev Urol       Date:  2004

6.  Stemming the tide of mild to moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence: A retrospective comparison of transobturator male slings and the artificial urinary sphincter.

Authors:  Nathan Y Hoy; Keith F Rourke
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  A qualitative inquiry of patient-reported outcomes: the case of lower urinary tract symptoms.

Authors:  Lisa C Welch; Elizabeth M Botelho; Jean Journel Joseph; Sharon L Tennstedt
Journal:  Nurs Res       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.381

8.  Optimizing veteran-centered prostate cancer survivorship care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ted A Skolarus; Tabitha Metreger; Soohyun Hwang; Hyungjin Myra Kim; Robert L Grubb; Jeffrey R Gingrich; Sarah T Hawley
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Quality of life three years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer: population based cohort study.

Authors:  David P Smith; Madeleine T King; Sam Egger; Martin P Berry; Phillip D Stricker; Paul Cozzi; Jeanette Ward; Dianne L O'Connell; Bruce K Armstrong
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-11-27

10.  Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy after the first decade: surgical evolution or new paradigm.

Authors:  Douglas W Skarecky
Journal:  ISRN Urol       Date:  2013-04-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.