TY - JOUR
T1 - Early continence after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review
AU - Salazar, A.
AU - Regis, L.
AU - Planas, J.
AU - Celma, A.
AU - Díaz, F.
AU - Gallardo, I.
AU - Trilla, E.
AU - Morote, J.
N1 - Copyright © 2019 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - © 2019 AEU Background and objective: Urinary incontinence is the adverse effect with more impact on patients’ quality of life after undergoing radical prostatectomy. The objective of this study is to review the present evidence that describes the variations on surgical techniques which aim to preserve urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. Evidence acquisition: We searched the literature on PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement, using the PICO review protocol. The search terms were urinary continence, urinary incontinence, urinary leakage, radical prostatectomy, open radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic prostatectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic prostatectomy. We identified 1,603 registers, and 27 articles were reviewed for meeting the inclusion criteria. Six of them are randomized clinical trials and 4 of them, meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: The surgical techniques more frequently used to achieve early urinary continence are bladder neck and neurovascular bundles preservation, as well as the reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter. The latter has been presented in three randomized clinical trials. Even though some approaches have obtained improved functional outcomes, the lack of consensus on the definition of urinary incontinence and its measurement methods have not advocated for the creation of technical recommendations based on scientific evidence. Conclusions: The reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter is the only technique that has shown improved functional results through randomized trials. The current evidence is limited and heterogenous, and more studies with consistent criteria are needed in order to establish a standard surgical technique.
AB - © 2019 AEU Background and objective: Urinary incontinence is the adverse effect with more impact on patients’ quality of life after undergoing radical prostatectomy. The objective of this study is to review the present evidence that describes the variations on surgical techniques which aim to preserve urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. Evidence acquisition: We searched the literature on PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) statement, using the PICO review protocol. The search terms were urinary continence, urinary incontinence, urinary leakage, radical prostatectomy, open radical prostatectomy, laparoscopic prostatectomy, robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy, robotic prostatectomy. We identified 1,603 registers, and 27 articles were reviewed for meeting the inclusion criteria. Six of them are randomized clinical trials and 4 of them, meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: The surgical techniques more frequently used to achieve early urinary continence are bladder neck and neurovascular bundles preservation, as well as the reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter. The latter has been presented in three randomized clinical trials. Even though some approaches have obtained improved functional outcomes, the lack of consensus on the definition of urinary incontinence and its measurement methods have not advocated for the creation of technical recommendations based on scientific evidence. Conclusions: The reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter is the only technique that has shown improved functional results through randomized trials. The current evidence is limited and heterogenous, and more studies with consistent criteria are needed in order to establish a standard surgical technique.
KW - Prostate cancer
KW - Radical prostatectomy
KW - Urinary incontinence
UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/early-continence-after-radical-prostatectomy-systematic-review
U2 - 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.06.003
DO - 10.1016/j.acuro.2019.06.003
M3 - Review article
C2 - 31606163
SN - 0210-4806
VL - 43
SP - 526
EP - 535
JO - Actas Urologicas Espanolas
JF - Actas Urologicas Espanolas
IS - 10
ER -