Literature DB >> 11822054

[Personal research: reconstruction of the urethral striated sphincter].

F Rocco1, F Gadda, P Acquati, L Carmignani, P Favini, P Dell'Orto, M Ferruti, A Avogadro, S Casellato, M Grisotto.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Incontinence is one of the drawbacks of radical prostatectomy. The causes of post-operative incontinence are sphincter deficiency (SD) and bladder dysfunction (BD). SD seems to be the main cause of incontinence and long time to continence. We present a surgical modification of the anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy consisting in the reconstruction of the posterior aspect of the striated urethral sphincter in order to obtain a quick recovery of continence postoperatively.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Caudal retraction of the urethro-sphincteric complex after apical dissection of the prostate often occurs. Furthermore posterior fibrous raphe interruption can cause shortening of anatomical and functional urethral length and affect continence. In order to avoid caudal retraction of the sphincteric complex, after completing vesico-urethral anastomosis, the posterior emicircumference of the striated sphincter is fixed to the posterior aspect of the bladder one centimeter cranially and posteriorly to the urethro-vesical anastomosis. The rabdosphincter is sutured separately from the urethro-vesical suturing. This technical modification makes it possible to obtain an anatomical length of the urethra of about a centimeter more than with the standard technique, replacing it in a more anatomical position. Furthermore, this technique provides the new posterior platform for the urethro-sphincteric complex. Twenty-four patients with clinical organ confined disease and age range 54-74 years (mean 64 years) underwent Walsh's anatomical radical retropubic prostatectomy with reconstruction of the rabdosphincter (group A). Catheter was removed 7 to 11 days postoperatively. Early continence was assessed objectively with the number of pads per day as follows: 0-1 mini pad = continent; 1-2 pads per day = mild incontinence; 2 or more pads per day = severe incontinence. Continence was evaluated at 3 days and one month after catheter removal. Group A compared to 21 patients (group B) who underwent standard anatomical RPP (historical control group).
RESULTS: In group A 16/24 patients (66.7%) and 19/24 patients (79.2%) were continent respectively at three days after removal of the catheter and after one month; mild incontinence (1-2 pads/day) was present in 6/24 patients (25%) and 3/24 (12.5%) respectively, 2/24 patients (8.3%) suffered from severe incontinence after 3 days and one month. In group B 7/21 patients (33%) were continent at hospital discharge, 11/21 (52%) after one month.
CONCLUSIONS: Careful reconstruction of the posterior aspects of the rabdosphincter shortens time to continence after RRP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11822054

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Ital Urol Androl        ISSN: 1124-3562


  14 in total

1.  Posterior reconstruction during robotic-assisted radical cystectomy with intracorporeal orthotopic ileal neobladder: description and outcomes of a simple step.

Authors:  Bernardo Rocco; Lorenzo G Luciani; Justin Collins; Rodolfo Sanchez-Salas; Christofer Adding; Daniele Mattevi; Abolfazl Hosseini; Peter Wiklund
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-06-29

2.  A new training model for robot-assisted urethrovesical anastomosis and posterior muscle-fascial reconstruction: the Verona training technique.

Authors:  G Cacciamani; V De Marco; S Siracusano; D De Marchi; L Bizzotto; M A Cerruto; G Motton; A B Porcaro; W Artibani
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2016-07-20

3.  Evidence-based evolution of our robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) technique through 13,000 cases.

Authors:  Kulthe Ramesh Seetharam Bhat; Marcio Covas Moschovas; Fikret Fatih Onol; Travis Rogers; Sunil Sandadi Reddy; Cathy Corder; Shannon Roof; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2020-10-10

4.  [Posterior musculofascial reconstruction during robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy].

Authors:  Annemarie Uhlig
Journal:  Urologie       Date:  2022-07-28

5.  Recommendations on robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a Brazilian experts' consensus.

Authors:  Eliney Ferreira Faria; Carlos Vaz Melo Maciel; André Berger; Anuar Mitre; Breno Dauster; Celso Heitor Freitas; Clovis Fraga; Daher Chade; Marcos Dall'Oglio; Francisco Carvalho; Franz Campos; Gustavo Franco Carvalhal; Gustavo Caserta Lemos; Gustavo Guimarães; Hamilton Zampolli; Joao Ricardo Alves; Joao Pádua Manzano; Marco Antônio Fortes; Marcos Flavio Holanda Rocha; Mauricio Rubinstein; Murilo Luz; Pedro Romanelli; Rafael Coelho; Raphael Rocha; Roberto Dias Machado; Rodolfo Borges Dos Reis; Stenio Zequi; Romulo Guida; Valdair Muglia; Marcos Tobias-Machado
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2021-01-11

6.  Handling difficult anastomosis. Tips and tricks in obese patients and narrow pelvis.

Authors:  Srinivas Samavedi; Haidar Abdul-Muhsin; Suneel Pigilam; Ananth Sivaraman; Vipul R Patel
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2014-10

Review 7.  Surgical Techniques to Optimize Early Urinary Continence Recovery Post Robot Assisted Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Ashwin N Sridhar; Mohammed Abozaid; Prabhakar Rajan; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Greg Shaw; Senthil Nathan; John D Kelly; Tim P Briggs
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 8.  Robotic prostatectomy: an update on functional and oncologic outcomes.

Authors:  Gabriele Cozzi; Elisa De Lorenzis; Carlotta Palumbo; Pietro Acquati; Giancarlo Albo; Paolo Dell'orto; Angelica Grasso; Bernardo Rocco
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2013-09-26

Review 9.  Advances in Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy over Time.

Authors:  Emma F P Jacobs; Ronald Boris; Timothy A Masterson
Journal:  Prostate Cancer       Date:  2013-11-12

Review 10.  Pelvic Floor Reconstruction After Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Different Surgical Techniques.

Authors:  Jianfeng Cui; Hu Guo; Yan Li; Shouzhen Chen; Yaofeng Zhu; Shiyu Wang; Yong Wang; Xigao Liu; Wenbo Wang; Jie Han; Pengxiang Chen; Shuping Nie; Gang Yin; Benkang Shi
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-06-02       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.