PURPOSE: To evaluate the recovery of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 258 patients who underwent surgery by a single surgeon to treat localized prostate cancer. The patients were divided into two groups according to operative method. In group 1, 146 consecutive patients underwent RALP, and in group 2, 112 patients underwent RRP. To compare the interval until the return of urinary continence between the two groups, we used the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. RESULTS: Differences between the two groups were found in mean estimated blood loss (EBL; p<0.001) and the rate of nerve sparing (p=0.004). When continence was defined as the use of 0 to 1 pad per day, 100% of group 1 and 98.2% of group 2 reported continence at 12 months (p=0.189). When continence was defined as no pad use, however, there was a significant difference between the two groups at 12 months: group 1, 95.7%, and group 2, 70.7% (p<0.001). The factors affecting time until no pad use in the univariate analysis with a Cox proportional hazards model were operation method, age, neurovascular bundle saving, membranous urethral length (MUL), EBL, and apical shape. In the multivariate analysis, only operation method, age, and MUL retained significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that RALP is an independent factor for the recovery of continence and that RALP has advantages for postoperative continence recovery and the quality of continence compared with RRP.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the recovery of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) and open radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 258 patients who underwent surgery by a single surgeon to treat localized prostate cancer. The patients were divided into two groups according to operative method. In group 1, 146 consecutive patients underwent RALP, and in group 2, 112 patients underwent RRP. To compare the interval until the return of urinary continence between the two groups, we used the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard regression analyses. RESULTS: Differences between the two groups were found in mean estimated blood loss (EBL; p<0.001) and the rate of nerve sparing (p=0.004). When continence was defined as the use of 0 to 1 pad per day, 100% of group 1 and 98.2% of group 2 reported continence at 12 months (p=0.189). When continence was defined as no pad use, however, there was a significant difference between the two groups at 12 months: group 1, 95.7%, and group 2, 70.7% (p<0.001). The factors affecting time until no pad use in the univariate analysis with a Cox proportional hazards model were operation method, age, neurovascular bundle saving, membranous urethral length (MUL), EBL, and apical shape. In the multivariate analysis, only operation method, age, and MUL retained significance. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that RALP is an independent factor for the recovery of continence and that RALP has advantages for postoperative continence recovery and the quality of continence compared with RRP.
Authors: Fergus V Coakley; Steven Eberhardt; Michael W Kattan; David C Wei; Peter T Scardino; Hedvig Hricak Journal: J Urol Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas E Ahlering; David Woo; Louis Eichel; David I Lee; Robert Edwards; Douglas W Skarecky Journal: Urology Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Giovanni B Di Pierro; Philipp Baumeister; Patrick Stucki; Josef Beatrice; Hansjörg Danuser; Agostino Mattei Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sang Eun Lee; Seok-Soo Byun; Hak Jong Lee; Sang Hoon Song; In Ho Chang; Yong June Kim; Myung Chul Gill; Sung Kyu Hong Journal: Urology Date: 2006-06-13 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Thordis Thorsteinsdottir; Johan Stranne; Stefan Carlsson; Bo Anderberg; Ingela Björholt; Jan-Erik Damber; Jonas Hugosson; Ulrica Wilderäng; Peter Wiklund; Gunnar Steineck; Eva Haglind Journal: Scand J Urol Nephrol Date: 2010-11-29
Authors: Ashutosh K Tewari; Kevin Bigelow; Sandhya Rao; Atsushi Takenaka; Nasr El-Tabi; Alex Te; E D Vaughan Journal: Urology Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: G Hatiboglu; D Teber; D Tichy; S Pahernik; B Hadaschik; J Nyarangi-Dix; M Hohenfellner Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Ja Yoon Ku; Chan Ho Lee; Won Young Park; Nam Kyung Lee; Seung Hyun Baek; Hong Koo Ha Journal: Int J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-01-16 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Abbas Basiri; Jean Jmch de la Rosette; Shahin Tabatabaei; Henry H Woo; M Pilar Laguna; Hamidreza Shemshaki Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 4.226