OBJECTIVE: To report our experience of the influence of bladder neck preservation on patient continence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radical retropubic prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation was performed in 131 patients (age range 48-73 years; mean 64.5 years). Urinary continence was evaluated using a validated questionnaire at follow-up visits and telephone interviews. All patients reporting incontinence were studied using a pad test and urodynamics. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 21.7 months (range 4-47 months), 115 patients were continent (87%) and 16 incontinent. According to the International Continence Society criteria, three had severe, three moderate and 10 mild incontinence. Urodynamics revealed sphincter deficiency in 15 cases, which was associated with decreased bladder compliance in four, while decreased compliance was the only abnormality in one. Continence was recovered 0-27 months after surgery (mean 3.2 months): 40% of men were continent within the first month and 74% within the third. Histopathology revealed positive margins in 30/131 patients (22%), but exclusively at the bladder neck level in only seven (5%), and two also had positive nodes. Six patients (4.5%) presented bladder neck stenosis requiring transurethral incision. No statistically significant differences were found between the ages of continent and incontinent men or between the time to continence recovery with two different techniques of retropubic hemostasis; however, use of a nerve-sparing technique significantly reduced the time to continence recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy does not improve the long-term results of urinary continence but does contribute substantially to its earlier recovery, thus improving the quality of life. With proper patient selection the risk of positive margins at the bladder neck level only is reasonably low.
OBJECTIVE: To report our experience of the influence of bladder neck preservation on patient continence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Radical retropubic prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation was performed in 131 patients (age range 48-73 years; mean 64.5 years). Urinary continence was evaluated using a validated questionnaire at follow-up visits and telephone interviews. All patients reporting incontinence were studied using a pad test and urodynamics. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 21.7 months (range 4-47 months), 115 patients were continent (87%) and 16 incontinent. According to the International Continence Society criteria, three had severe, three moderate and 10 mild incontinence. Urodynamics revealed sphincter deficiency in 15 cases, which was associated with decreased bladder compliance in four, while decreased compliance was the only abnormality in one. Continence was recovered 0-27 months after surgery (mean 3.2 months): 40% of men were continent within the first month and 74% within the third. Histopathology revealed positive margins in 30/131 patients (22%), but exclusively at the bladder neck level in only seven (5%), and two also had positive nodes. Six patients (4.5%) presented bladder neck stenosis requiring transurethral incision. No statistically significant differences were found between the ages of continent and incontinent men or between the time to continence recovery with two different techniques of retropubic hemostasis; however, use of a nerve-sparing technique significantly reduced the time to continence recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Bladder neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy does not improve the long-term results of urinary continence but does contribute substantially to its earlier recovery, thus improving the quality of life. With proper patient selection the risk of positive margins at the bladder neck level only is reasonably low.
Authors: Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg; Martin Nicolaus; Panagiotis Kallidonis; Minh Do; Anja Dietel; Tim Häfner; George Sakellaropoulos; James Hicks; David Nikoleishvili; Evangelos Liatsikos Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2011-09-12 Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Bradley A Erickson; Joshua J Meeks; Kimberly A Roehl; Christopher M Gonzalez; William J Catalona Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-07-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Gita M Schoeppler; Dirk Zaak; Dirk-Andre Clevert; Petra Schuhmann; Oliver Reich; Michael Seitz; Wael Y Khoder; Michael Staehler; Christian G Stief; Alexander Buchner Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2012-05-15 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: Piotr L Chłosta; Tomasz Drewa; Jarosław Jaskulski; Jakub Dobruch; John Varkarakis; Andrzej Borówka Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 1.195