Minimising Postoperative Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Considerations and Evidence

Angelo J. Cambio, Christopher P Evans

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

82 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To review evidence regarding perioperative predictors of incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP), related anatomic and patient factors, and surgical techniques used to minimise incontinence. Methods: A search of the Pubmed, Cancerlit, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases was performed for the key words prostatectomy, incontinence, and continence. Relevant articles were reviewed, summarised, and analysed. Results: Enhanced understanding of pelvic anatomy applied to surgical approaches has improved continence rates following RP; however, incontinence remains a potential adverse outcome. Evidence suggests that increasing patient body weight and prostate volume are not associated with continence outcomes, but increasing patient age may be predictive. Behavioural therapy may aid in early return to continence although the timing of therapy and benefit of biofeedback assistance are unclear. Various surgical techniques are used to improve continence, but no evidence overwhelmingly supports any specific technique. At best, evidence supports early return to continence with some techniques. No technique significantly increased margin positivity solely at the experimental anatomic site. Conclusions: Despite enhanced knowledge of anatomy and improved surgical approach, incontinence persists as a potential adverse outcome of RP. Urologists may not find an evidence-based rationalisation for any particular surgical technique due to the nature of surgical series, variability in the definition of incontinence, and individual surgical skills, preferences, and techniques. Giving careful consideration to the trial design can potentially improve the resulting level of evidence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)903-913
Number of pages11
JournalEuropean Urology
Volume50
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2006

Fingerprint

Prostatectomy
Anatomy
PubMed
Prostate
Body Weight
Databases
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Bladder neck preservation
  • Continence
  • Incontinence
  • Prostate cancer
  • Puboprostatic ligament
  • Radical prostatectomy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Minimising Postoperative Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy : Considerations and Evidence. / Cambio, Angelo J.; Evans, Christopher P.

In: European Urology, Vol. 50, No. 5, 11.2006, p. 903-913.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b42573a0cbba411aa7c3e49139286bd2,
title = "Minimising Postoperative Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Considerations and Evidence",
abstract = "Objectives: To review evidence regarding perioperative predictors of incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP), related anatomic and patient factors, and surgical techniques used to minimise incontinence. Methods: A search of the Pubmed, Cancerlit, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases was performed for the key words prostatectomy, incontinence, and continence. Relevant articles were reviewed, summarised, and analysed. Results: Enhanced understanding of pelvic anatomy applied to surgical approaches has improved continence rates following RP; however, incontinence remains a potential adverse outcome. Evidence suggests that increasing patient body weight and prostate volume are not associated with continence outcomes, but increasing patient age may be predictive. Behavioural therapy may aid in early return to continence although the timing of therapy and benefit of biofeedback assistance are unclear. Various surgical techniques are used to improve continence, but no evidence overwhelmingly supports any specific technique. At best, evidence supports early return to continence with some techniques. No technique significantly increased margin positivity solely at the experimental anatomic site. Conclusions: Despite enhanced knowledge of anatomy and improved surgical approach, incontinence persists as a potential adverse outcome of RP. Urologists may not find an evidence-based rationalisation for any particular surgical technique due to the nature of surgical series, variability in the definition of incontinence, and individual surgical skills, preferences, and techniques. Giving careful consideration to the trial design can potentially improve the resulting level of evidence.",
keywords = "Bladder neck preservation, Continence, Incontinence, Prostate cancer, Puboprostatic ligament, Radical prostatectomy",
author = "Cambio, {Angelo J.} and Evans, {Christopher P}",
year = "2006",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "903--913",
journal = "European Urology",
issn = "0302-2838",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Minimising Postoperative Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy

T2 - Considerations and Evidence

AU - Cambio, Angelo J.

AU - Evans, Christopher P

PY - 2006/11

Y1 - 2006/11

N2 - Objectives: To review evidence regarding perioperative predictors of incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP), related anatomic and patient factors, and surgical techniques used to minimise incontinence. Methods: A search of the Pubmed, Cancerlit, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases was performed for the key words prostatectomy, incontinence, and continence. Relevant articles were reviewed, summarised, and analysed. Results: Enhanced understanding of pelvic anatomy applied to surgical approaches has improved continence rates following RP; however, incontinence remains a potential adverse outcome. Evidence suggests that increasing patient body weight and prostate volume are not associated with continence outcomes, but increasing patient age may be predictive. Behavioural therapy may aid in early return to continence although the timing of therapy and benefit of biofeedback assistance are unclear. Various surgical techniques are used to improve continence, but no evidence overwhelmingly supports any specific technique. At best, evidence supports early return to continence with some techniques. No technique significantly increased margin positivity solely at the experimental anatomic site. Conclusions: Despite enhanced knowledge of anatomy and improved surgical approach, incontinence persists as a potential adverse outcome of RP. Urologists may not find an evidence-based rationalisation for any particular surgical technique due to the nature of surgical series, variability in the definition of incontinence, and individual surgical skills, preferences, and techniques. Giving careful consideration to the trial design can potentially improve the resulting level of evidence.

AB - Objectives: To review evidence regarding perioperative predictors of incontinence after radical prostatectomy (RP), related anatomic and patient factors, and surgical techniques used to minimise incontinence. Methods: A search of the Pubmed, Cancerlit, Cochrane, and ISI Web of Science databases was performed for the key words prostatectomy, incontinence, and continence. Relevant articles were reviewed, summarised, and analysed. Results: Enhanced understanding of pelvic anatomy applied to surgical approaches has improved continence rates following RP; however, incontinence remains a potential adverse outcome. Evidence suggests that increasing patient body weight and prostate volume are not associated with continence outcomes, but increasing patient age may be predictive. Behavioural therapy may aid in early return to continence although the timing of therapy and benefit of biofeedback assistance are unclear. Various surgical techniques are used to improve continence, but no evidence overwhelmingly supports any specific technique. At best, evidence supports early return to continence with some techniques. No technique significantly increased margin positivity solely at the experimental anatomic site. Conclusions: Despite enhanced knowledge of anatomy and improved surgical approach, incontinence persists as a potential adverse outcome of RP. Urologists may not find an evidence-based rationalisation for any particular surgical technique due to the nature of surgical series, variability in the definition of incontinence, and individual surgical skills, preferences, and techniques. Giving careful consideration to the trial design can potentially improve the resulting level of evidence.

KW - Bladder neck preservation

KW - Continence

KW - Incontinence

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Puboprostatic ligament

KW - Radical prostatectomy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749255816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749255816&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.009

DO - 10.1016/j.eururo.2006.08.009

M3 - Article

C2 - 16956715

AN - SCOPUS:33749255816

VL - 50

SP - 903

EP - 913

JO - European Urology

JF - European Urology

SN - 0302-2838

IS - 5

ER -