OBJECTIVES: To propose a strict and specific definition of continence (leak-free and pad-free [LFPF]) and apply it to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) outcomes on the basis of University of California-Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), as postprostatectomy incontinence is not well defined. METHODS: A single-institution RARP database was reviewed concerning continence variables prospectively recorded by the UCLA-PCI. Specific responses to urinary function and continence items were reviewed at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: From February 2003 to September 2007, a total of 1005 of 1500 RARP patients had data available for review. At baseline, only 73% of these patients were LFPF. This decreased to 4%, 9%, 17%, 24%, and 28% at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery, respectively. Applying less strict definitions, at 24 months, 68% of patients reported no pad use and 90% of patients reported no pad use or the use of a security pad. When stratified by baseline LFPF status, patients not LFPF at baseline had higher baseline international prostate symptom score scores, lower urinary function scores, lower urinary bother scores, and larger prostate weights. Patients LFPF at baseline disproportionately regained LFPF continence starting 6 months after surgery compared with those not LFPF at baseline: 20% vs 9% (P = .005), 27% vs 15% (P = .0009), and 33% vs 15% (P = .0146) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A strict definition of urinary continence results in more conservative postoperative outcomes. Preoperative LFPF status can be predictive of postoperative LFPF continence. However, only one-third of patients LFPF at baseline returned to LFPF at 24 months. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To propose a strict and specific definition of continence (leak-free and pad-free [LFPF]) and apply it to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) outcomes on the basis of University of California-Los Angeles-Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), as postprostatectomy incontinence is not well defined. METHODS: A single-institution RARP database was reviewed concerning continence variables prospectively recorded by the UCLA-PCI. Specific responses to urinary function and continence items were reviewed at baseline and 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: From February 2003 to September 2007, a total of 1005 of 1500 RARP patients had data available for review. At baseline, only 73% of these patients were LFPF. This decreased to 4%, 9%, 17%, 24%, and 28% at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery, respectively. Applying less strict definitions, at 24 months, 68% of patients reported no pad use and 90% of patients reported no pad use or the use of a security pad. When stratified by baseline LFPF status, patients not LFPF at baseline had higher baseline international prostate symptom score scores, lower urinary function scores, lower urinary bother scores, and larger prostate weights. Patients LFPF at baseline disproportionately regained LFPF continence starting 6 months after surgery compared with those not LFPF at baseline: 20% vs 9% (P = .005), 27% vs 15% (P = .0009), and 33% vs 15% (P = .0146) at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A strict definition of urinary continence results in more conservative postoperative outcomes. Preoperative LFPF status can be predictive of postoperative LFPF continence. However, only one-third of patients LFPF at baseline returned to LFPF at 24 months. 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Kevin C Zorn; Hugues Widmer; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Dan Liberman; Naeem Bhojani; Quoc-Dien Trinh; Maxine Sun; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Ronald Denis; Assaad El-Hakim Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Kelly M Scott; Erika Gosai; Michelle H Bradley; Steven Walton; Linda S Hynan; Gary Lemack; Claus Roehrborn Journal: Int Urol Nephrol Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 2.370
Authors: S Faithfull; A Lemanska; P Aslet; N Bhatt; J Coe; L Drudge-Coates; M Feneley; R Glynn-Jones; M Kirby; S Langley; T McNicholas; J Newman; C C Smith; A Sahai; E Trueman; H Payne Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Linda M Huynh; Douglas Skarecky; James Porter; Christian Wagner; Jorn Witt; Timothy Wilson; Clayton Lau; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Simone Albisinni; Fouad Aoun; Thierry Quackels; Grégoire Assenmacher; Alexandre Peltier; Roland van Velthoven; Thierry Roumeguère Journal: Am J Mens Health Date: 2019 May-Jun
Authors: Leonard N Chen; Simeng Suy; Hongkun Wang; Aditi Bhagat; Jennifer A Woo; Rudy A Moures; Joy S Kim; Thomas M Yung; Siyuan Lei; Brian T Collins; Keith Kowalczyk; Anatoly Dritschilo; John H Lynch; Sean P Collins Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 3.481