[Stress incontinence after prostatectomy in treatment reality: results from a rehabilitation clinic].

BACKGROUND: In the current discussion on the operative therapy of prostate cancer, not only"if" but also"how" play a major role. Both questions are closely related as, e.g. a possible excessive therapy will result in additional suffering due to stress incontinence. For the most common, troublesome and expensive consequences of prostatectomy it is of interest to know which factors play a role in treatment reality and which could possibly be avoided. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The hospital records of all patients who underwent follow-up treatment after prostatectomy in 2009 at the clinic in the spa park in Bad Wildungen-Reinhardshausen were evaluated with respect to relevant data on outcome and clinical endpoints.
RESULTS: Of the 1,750 patients 405 (23.1 %) were continent on admission and discharge and a further 189 (10.8 %) were continent on discharge so that a total of 594 patients (33.9 %) were continent on discharge. Of the 1,155 patients (66.0 %) who were incontinent on admission and discharge, this remained the same during the rehabilitation period for 727 (62.9 %) who were diurnally incontinent and 659 (57.1 %) who were nocturnally incontinent. For 387 patients (33.5 %) the incontinence decreased during the day and for 370 (32.0 %) during the night, for 34 (3.4 %) the incontinence increased during the day and for 45 (3.9 %) during the night. An age < 60 years was advantageous for maintaining continence and in contrast > 70 years was disadvantageous. Retention of nerves showed a significant effect on maintaining continence. Statistically significant differences between the results of operative procedures and the results of the type of clinic (KKP communal, confessional and private or UK university clinic) were not observed. However, the results of maintaining continence (up to termination of rehabilitation treatment) for the 594 patients (33.9 %) was only achieved by 94 (51 %) of all 183 clinics, i.e. 78 (49.7 %) of the KKP clinics and 14 (53.9 %) of UK clinics. For the certified prostate centers of KKP and UK clinics this amounted to 17 (81 %) and 5 (83.3 %), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In treatment reality of follow-up treatment of patients after prostatectomy in rehabilitation clinics approximately one third (33.9 %) achieved retention of continence up to discharge. An age < 60 years was advantageous and > 70 years disadvantageous. Bilateral and unilateral retention of nerves significantly improved retention of continence. The operative procedure and type of clinic did not significantly affect the results. However, in approximately one third of patients (33.9 %) retention of continence was achieved by only approximately one half (51.4 %) of all clinics. This shows that in treatment reality, stress incontinence following prostatectomy is avoidably underdeveloped and can be demonstrably increased by suitable operative techniques for sphincter protection.