RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY: BLADDER NECK PRESERVATION VERSUS RECONSTRUCTION
2000; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 163; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1016/s0022-5347(05)68003-2
ISSN1527-3792
AutoresMichael W. Poon, Herbert C. Ruckle, B. ROBERT BAMSHAD, Chris Tsai, Raul Webster, Paul D. Lui,
Tópico(s)Pelvic and Acetabular Injuries
ResumoNo AccessJournal of UrologyCLINICAL UROLOGY: Original Articles1 Jan 2000RADICAL RETROPUBIC PROSTATECTOMY: BLADDER NECK PRESERVATION VERSUS RECONSTRUCTION MICHAEL POON, HERBERT RUCKLE, B. ROBERT BAMSHAD, CHRIS TSAI, RAUL WEBSTER, and PAUL LUI MICHAEL POONMICHAEL POON , HERBERT RUCKLEHERBERT RUCKLE , B. ROBERT BAMSHADB. ROBERT BAMSHAD , CHRIS TSAICHRIS TSAI , RAUL WEBSTERRAUL WEBSTER , and PAUL LUIPAUL LUI View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68003-2AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: We compare bladder neck contracture, urinary continence and positive surgical margin rates after bladder neck preservation and excision with radical retropubic prostatectomy. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical and pathological findings, and followup of 220 patients who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy was performed. Patients were divided into 3 groups of bladder neck preservation (101), "tennis racket" reconstruction (63) and anterior bladder tube reconstruction (56). Results: Mean followup was 19.7, 36.7 and 16.2 months, respectively, for bladder neck preservation, tennis racket reconstruction and anterior bladder tube reconstruction. Overall, bladder neck contracture occurred in 22 of 220 cases (10%), including 5 of 101 (5%) with bladder neck preservation, 7 of 63 (11%) with tennis racket reconstruction and 10 of 56 (18%) with anterior bladder tube reconstruction, which approached statistical significance (p = 0.061). Urinary continence was assessed by a third party telephone interview of 165 patients. Continence rates at 1 year were 93% for bladder neck preservation, 96% for tennis racket reconstruction and 97% for anterior bladder tube reconstruction, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.68). Positive margin rates were 27.4% with bladder neck preservation versus 30.5% with excision, which was not significantly different. Conclusions: There are no statistically significant differences in return of urinary continence, bladder neck contracture rates or positive margins between bladder neck preservation and excision. References 1 : Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J Urol1991; 145: 512. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Patient-reported complications and follow-up treatment after radical prostatectomy. Urology1993; 42: 622. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar 3 : Radical retropubic prostatectomy: morbidity and quality of life. experience with 620 consecutive cases. J Urol1992; 147: 883. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Improved continence with tubularized bladder neck reconstruction following radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology1996; 47: 532. Google Scholar 5 : Comparison of bladder neck preservation to bladder neck resection in maintaining postprostatectomy urinary continence. Urology1996; 48: 889. Google Scholar 6 : Puboprostatic ligament sparing improves urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology1998; 51: 67. Google Scholar 7 : Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol1993; 150: 905. Link, Google Scholar 8 : Early continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol1992; 148: 92. Link, Google Scholar 9 : Impact of bladder neck preservation during radical prostatectomy on continence and cancer control. Urology1994; 44: 883. Google Scholar 10 : Radical prostatectomy with preservation of urinary continence. J Urol1996; 156: 445. Link, Google Scholar 11 : Continence following nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol1989; 142: 1227. Link, Google Scholar 12 : Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol1996; 156: 1707. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Bladder neck preservation and its impact on positive surgical margins during radical prostatectomy. Urology1993; 42: 689. Google Scholar 14 : Tubularized neourethra following radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol1993; 150: 407. Link, Google Scholar 15 : Prostate shape, external striated urethral sphincter, and radical prostatectomy: The apical dissection. J Urol1987; 138: 543. Link, Google Scholar 16 : Post-prostatectomy incontinence: pathophysiology, evaluation, and management. Urol Clin North Am1991; 18: 229. Google Scholar 17 : Pathophysiology of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol1990; 143: 975. Link, Google Scholar 18 : Anastomotic strictures following radical prostatectomy: risk factors and management. J Urol1990; 143: 755. Link, Google Scholar 19 : Vesicourethral healing following radical prostatectomy: is it related to surgical approach?. Urology1994; 44: 888. Google Scholar 20 : Radical perineal prostatectomy. Surg Gynecol Obstet1940; 70: 933. Google Scholar 21 : Comparison of techniques for vesicourethral anastomosis: simple direct versus modified Vest traction sutures. Urology1988; 31: 474. Google Scholar 22 : Update on bladder neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy: impact on pathologic outcome, anastomotic strictures, and continence. Urology1998; 51: 73. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar From the Division of Urology, Loma Linda University School of Medicine, Loma Linda, California© 2000 by American Urological Association, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byTyson M, Ark J, Gregg J, Johnsen N, Kappa S, Lee D and Smith J (2017) The Null Effect of Bladder Neck Size on Incontinence Outcomes after Radical ProstatectomyJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 6, (1404-1408), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017.Brunocilla E, Pultrone C, Borghesi M and Schiavina R (2013) Re: Impact of Complete Bladder Neck Preservation on Urinary Continence, Quality of Life and Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized, Controlled, Single Blind TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 190, NO. 2, (815-816), Online publication date: 1-Aug-2013.Nyarangi-Dix J, Radtke J, Hadaschik B, Pahernik S and Hohenfellner M (2012) Impact of Complete Bladder Neck Preservation on Urinary Continence, Quality of Life and Surgical Margins After Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized, Controlled, Single Blind TrialJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 3, (891-898), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2013.GAKER D and STEEL B (2018) RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY WITH PRESERVATION OF URINARY CONTINENCE: PATHOLOGY AND LONG-TERM RESULTSJournal of Urology, VOL. 172, NO. 6 Part 2, (2549-2552), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2004.KATZ R, SALOMON L, HOZNEK A, de la TAILLE A, ANTIPHON P and ABBOU C (2018) Positive Surgical Margins in Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: The Impact of Apical Dissection, Bladder Neck Remodeling and Nerve PreservationJournal of Urology, VOL. 169, NO. 6, (2049-2052), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2003. Volume 163Issue 1January 2000Page: 194-198 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2000 by American Urological Association, Inc.Keywordsretropubic prostatectomyprostatic neoplasmsurinary incontinenceMetricsAuthor Information MICHAEL POON More articles by this author HERBERT RUCKLE More articles by this author B. ROBERT BAMSHAD More articles by this author CHRIS TSAI More articles by this author RAUL WEBSTER More articles by this author PAUL LUI More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Referência(s)