M M Koraitim1, M A Atta, M K Foda. 1. Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of preserving the prostatic apex on continence and urinary flow in patients with post-cystectomy intestinal bladder substitutes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 38 male patients underwent radical cystectomy for bladder carcinoma and construction of a neobladder from ileum [9], sigmoid [9] or an ileocaecal segment [20]. The intestinal reservoir was anastomosed to the membranous urethra in 25 patients and to the apical prostatic capsule in 13. A subjective evaluation of urinary continence, uroflowmetry and urethral pressure profilometry were performed 1-3 years after surgery. RESULTS: The only variable which showed a significant difference between patients with and without preservation of the prostatic apex was the functional profile length (P < 0.05). Conversely, there was no statistically significant difference in the continence result, peak flow rate and maximum urethral pressure between these two groups. However, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in peak flow rate among the three versions of neobladder in patients with a preserved prostatic apex (9.4 mL/s in ileal vs 15.8 mL/s in sigmoid and ileocaecal segments). CONCLUSION: Preservation of the prostatic apex does not improve urinary continence in patients with intestinal neobladders and may present an element obstructing the evacuation of ileal bladders.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of preserving the prostatic apex on continence and urinary flow in patients with post-cystectomy intestinal bladder substitutes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 38 male patients underwent radical cystectomy for bladder carcinoma and construction of a neobladder from ileum [9], sigmoid [9] or an ileocaecal segment [20]. The intestinal reservoir was anastomosed to the membranous urethra in 25 patients and to the apical prostatic capsule in 13. A subjective evaluation of urinary continence, uroflowmetry and urethral pressure profilometry were performed 1-3 years after surgery. RESULTS: The only variable which showed a significant difference between patients with and without preservation of the prostatic apex was the functional profile length (P < 0.05). Conversely, there was no statistically significant difference in the continence result, peak flow rate and maximum urethral pressure between these two groups. However, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in peak flow rate among the three versions of neobladder in patients with a preserved prostatic apex (9.4 mL/s in ileal vs 15.8 mL/s in sigmoid and ileocaecal segments). CONCLUSION: Preservation of the prostatic apex does not improve urinary continence in patients with intestinal neobladders and may present an element obstructing the evacuation of ileal bladders.