INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate urinary continence recovery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using monofilament poliglecaprone (Monocryl®) suture vs. barbed suture (V-LocTM 180) during vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA). METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort, data were collected on 322 consecutive patients. All patients underwent continuous, bidirectional, single-layer running anastomosis with either 3.0 monofilament suture (n=141) or 3.0 barbed suture (n=181). The primary outcome was continence recovery defined as time to 0 pad at one, three, six, 12, and 24 months following surgery. RESULTS: Continence rates were significantly better with monofilament VUA at all followup time points up to one year. Median time to continence was one month vs. five months in the monofilament group vs. barbed group, respectively (p<0.001). Continence rates in monofilament suture vs. barbed group at one, three, six, 12, and 24 months were 56% vs. 26% (p<0.001), 73% vs. 36.4% (p<0.001), 84.4% vs. 60.2% (p<0.001), 90.8% vs. 71.9% (p<0.001), and 93.5% vs.87.1% (p=0.1), respectively. Anastomosis time was shorter in the barbed group, with a median of 23 vs. 30 minutes (p<0.001). Patients anastomosed with Monocryl suture had smaller prostate weight (median 42.5 g vs. 50 g; p<0.001) and harbored less advanced disease (T2a-c 76.6 vs. 74%; p=0.01) relative to patients treated with V-Loc 180 suture. However, in a multivariate Cox logistic regression analyses, independent predictors of continence recovery were suture type (hazard ratio [HR] 53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.68; p=0.02] and prostate size (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Barbed VUA contributed to delayed continence recovery compared to monofilament poliglecaprone suture during the first year post-RARP. However, no statistically significant difference was recorded at two years post-RARP. These results warrant special attention, especially with the widespread use of barbed suture in recent years.
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to evaluate urinary continence recovery following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) using monofilament poliglecaprone (Monocryl®) suture vs. barbed suture (V-LocTM 180) during vesicourethral anastomosis (VUA). METHODS: In this prospective, observational cohort, data were collected on 322 consecutive patients. All patients underwent continuous, bidirectional, single-layer running anastomosis with either 3.0 monofilament suture (n=141) or 3.0 barbed suture (n=181). The primary outcome was continence recovery defined as time to 0 pad at one, three, six, 12, and 24 months following surgery. RESULTS: Continence rates were significantly better with monofilament VUA at all followup time points up to one year. Median time to continence was one month vs. five months in the monofilament group vs. barbed group, respectively (p<0.001). Continence rates in monofilament suture vs. barbed group at one, three, six, 12, and 24 months were 56% vs. 26% (p<0.001), 73% vs. 36.4% (p<0.001), 84.4% vs. 60.2% (p<0.001), 90.8% vs. 71.9% (p<0.001), and 93.5% vs.87.1% (p=0.1), respectively. Anastomosis time was shorter in the barbed group, with a median of 23 vs. 30 minutes (p<0.001). Patients anastomosed with Monocryl suture had smaller prostate weight (median 42.5 g vs. 50 g; p<0.001) and harbored less advanced disease (T2a-c 76.6 vs. 74%; p=0.01) relative to patients treated with V-Loc 180 suture. However, in a multivariate Cox logistic regression analyses, independent predictors of continence recovery were suture type (hazard ratio [HR] 53; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41-0.68; p=0.02] and prostate size (HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98-0.99; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Barbed VUA contributed to delayed continence recovery compared to monofilament poliglecaprone suture during the first year post-RARP. However, no statistically significant difference was recorded at two years post-RARP. These results warrant special attention, especially with the widespread use of barbed suture in recent years.
Authors: Assaad El-Hakim; Robert A Leung; Lee Richstone; Tara S Kim; Alexis E Te; Ashutosh K Tewari Journal: BJU Int Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.588