Nina Natascha Harke1, Christian Wagner2, Nikolaos Liakos2, Katarina Urbanova2, Mustapha Addali2, Boris A Hadaschik3, Jorn H Witt2. 1. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Moellenweg 22, 48599, Gronau, Germany. harkenina@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Pediatric Urology and Urologic Oncology, Prostate Center Northwest, St. Antonius Hospital, Moellenweg 22, 48599, Gronau, Germany. 3. Department of Urology, Essen University Hospital, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To elucidate early and long-term continence and patient comfort depending on type and duration of catheterization after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS:198 patients were randomized prospectively into three groups (May 2016-July 2017): A transurethral catheter with micturition on postoperative day (POD) 5 was placed in the control group (TD5); a suprapubic tube (SPT) with micturition on POD 5 was placed in the group SD5 or with micturition on POD 2 in group SD2, respectively. Questionnaires were used for catheter-related satisfaction. Functional outcome analysis included residual volume analysis, uroflowmetry, IPSS, 12-h pad test, and daily pad use. Follow-up was conducted up to 12 months. RESULTS:Postoperative comfort and catheter-related complications were similar in the three groups. However, on the day of catheter removal, continence was significantly better in the 12-h pad test for the SD2 group with 14 ml vs. 30 ml (TD5) and 24 ml (SD5), p = 0.007. Median residual urine volume between the groups was comparable with 17 ml in TD5, 7 ml in SD5, and 11 ml in SD2, (p = 0.07). Postoperative IPSS did not differ significantly in the follow-up period. After 4 weeks, 63% of the patients in SD2 were continent (no pad/day) compared to 33% in TD5 and 41% in SD5, p = 0.004. After 12 months, 76% were continent in TD5, 87% in SD5, and 94% in SD2, p = 0.023. CONCLUSIONS: Early micturition after SPT placement in robotic radical prostatectomy seems to be beneficial without an increased risk of complications.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To elucidate early and long-term continence and patient comfort depending on type and duration of catheterization after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS: 198 patients were randomized prospectively into three groups (May 2016-July 2017): A transurethral catheter with micturition on postoperative day (POD) 5 was placed in the control group (TD5); a suprapubic tube (SPT) with micturition on POD 5 was placed in the group SD5 or with micturition on POD 2 in group SD2, respectively. Questionnaires were used for catheter-related satisfaction. Functional outcome analysis included residual volume analysis, uroflowmetry, IPSS, 12-h pad test, and daily pad use. Follow-up was conducted up to 12 months. RESULTS: Postoperative comfort and catheter-related complications were similar in the three groups. However, on the day of catheter removal, continence was significantly better in the 12-h pad test for the SD2 group with 14 ml vs. 30 ml (TD5) and 24 ml (SD5), p = 0.007. Median residual urine volume between the groups was comparable with 17 ml in TD5, 7 ml in SD5, and 11 ml in SD2, (p = 0.07). Postoperative IPSS did not differ significantly in the follow-up period. After 4 weeks, 63% of the patients in SD2 were continent (no pad/day) compared to 33% in TD5 and 41% in SD5, p = 0.004. After 12 months, 76% were continent in TD5, 87% in SD5, and 94% in SD2, p = 0.023. CONCLUSIONS: Early micturition after SPT placement in robotic radical prostatectomy seems to be beneficial without an increased risk of complications.
Authors: Thorsten Schlomm; Hans Heinzer; Thomas Steuber; Georg Salomon; Oliver Engel; Uwe Michl; Alexander Haese; Markus Graefen; Hartwig Huland Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-03-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicolas Mottet; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Erik Briers; Marcus G Cumberbatch; Maria De Santis; Nicola Fossati; Tobias Gross; Ann M Henry; Steven Joniau; Thomas B Lam; Malcolm D Mason; Vsevolod B Matveev; Paul C Moldovan; Roderick C N van den Bergh; Thomas Van den Broeck; Henk G van der Poel; Theo H van der Kwast; Olivier Rouvière; Ivo G Schoots; Thomas Wiegel; Philip Cornford Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Kang-Hsien Fan; Peter C Albertsen; Michael Goodman; Ann S Hamilton; Richard M Hoffman; Arnold L Potosky; Janet L Stanford; Antoinette M Stroup; R Lawrence Van Horn; David F Penson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Freddie Bray; Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rebecca L Siegel; Lindsey A Torre; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-01-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Benedikt Hoeh; Felix Preisser; Mike Wenzel; Clara Humke; Clarissa Wittler; Jan L Hohenhorst; Maja Volckmann-Wilde; Jens Köllermann; Thomas Steuber; Markus Graefen; Derya Tilki; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Andreas Becker; Luis A Kluth; Felix K H Chun; Philipp Mandel Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2021-11-15 Impact factor: 3.677