PURPOSE: We investigated the influence of bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 208 men who presented for radical prostatectomy were randomized to complete bladder neck preservation with subsequent urethro-urethral anastomosis or to no preservation as controls. Patients with failed bladder neck preservation were not included in study. We documented objective continence by the 24-hour pad test, social continence by the number of pads per day and quality of life outcomes by the validated Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire in a single blind setting. Cancer resection was assessed by surgical margin status. RESULTS: At 0, 3, 6 and 12 months mean urine loss in the control vs the bladder neck preservation group was 713.3 vs 237.0, 49.6 vs 15.6, 44.4 vs 5.5 and 25.4 vs 3.1 gm, respectively (each p <0.001). At 3, 6 and 12 months in the control vs the preservation group the social continence rate was 55.3% vs 84.2% (p <0.001), 74.8% vs 89.5% (p = 0.05) and 81.4% vs 94.7% (p = 0.027), and the quality of life score was 80.4 vs 90.3 (p <0.001), 85.4 vs 91.7 (p = 0.016) and 86.0 vs 93.8 (p = 0.001), respectively. We noted significantly less urine loss, higher objective and social continence rates, and higher quality of life scores after complete bladder neck preservation at all followup points. On multiple logistic regression analysis complete bladder neck preservation was an independent positive predictor of continence. No significant difference was found in surgical margin status between the control and bladder neck preservation groups (12.5% vs 14.7%, p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In what is to our knowledge the first prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind trial complete bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy was associated with a significantly higher urinary continence rate and increased patient satisfaction without compromising resection margins.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We investigated the influence of bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 208 men who presented for radical prostatectomy were randomized to complete bladder neck preservation with subsequent urethro-urethral anastomosis or to no preservation as controls. Patients with failed bladder neck preservation were not included in study. We documented objective continence by the 24-hour pad test, social continence by the number of pads per day and quality of life outcomes by the validated Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire in a single blind setting. Cancer resection was assessed by surgical margin status. RESULTS: At 0, 3, 6 and 12 months mean urine loss in the control vs the bladder neck preservation group was 713.3 vs 237.0, 49.6 vs 15.6, 44.4 vs 5.5 and 25.4 vs 3.1 gm, respectively (each p <0.001). At 3, 6 and 12 months in the control vs the preservation group the social continence rate was 55.3% vs 84.2% (p <0.001), 74.8% vs 89.5% (p = 0.05) and 81.4% vs 94.7% (p = 0.027), and the quality of life score was 80.4 vs 90.3 (p <0.001), 85.4 vs 91.7 (p = 0.016) and 86.0 vs 93.8 (p = 0.001), respectively. We noted significantly less urine loss, higher objective and social continence rates, and higher quality of life scores after complete bladder neck preservation at all followup points. On multiple logistic regression analysis complete bladder neck preservation was an independent positive predictor of continence. No significant difference was found in surgical margin status between the control and bladder neck preservation groups (12.5% vs 14.7%, p = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: In what is to our knowledge the first prospective, randomized, controlled, single blind trial complete bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy was associated with a significantly higher urinary continence rate and increased patient satisfaction without compromising resection margins.
Authors: C Hüttenbrink; G Hatiboglu; T Simpfendörfer; J P Radtke; R Becker; D Teber; B Hadaschik; S Pahernik; M Hohenfellner Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Mark D Tyson; Jacob Ark; Justin R Gregg; Niels V Johnsen; Stephen F Kappa; Daniel J Lee; Joseph A Smith Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Emad Rajih; Malek Meskawi; Abdullah M Alenizi; Kevin C Zorn; Mansour Alnazari; Marc Zanaty; Naif Alhathal; Assaad El-Hakim Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Tomasz Golabek; Jaroslaw Jaskulski; Piotr Jarecki; Przemysław Dudek; Tomasz Szopiński; Piotr Chłosta Journal: Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne Date: 2014-09-05 Impact factor: 1.195