Long-term Functional Urinary Outcomes Comparing Single- vs Double-layer Urethrovesical Anastomosis: Two-year Follow-up of a Two-group Parallel Randomized Controlled Trial - 20/08/11
, Fred Muhletaler, James O. Peabody, Mireya Diaz-Insua, Ramgopal Satyanaryana, Mani MenonRésumé |
Objectives |
To evaluate long-term urinary outcomes in participants of a two-group randomized clinical trial comparing continence after robotic prostatectomy (RP) between those who had reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter and puboprostatic collar (double-layer anastomosis) with those who had not.
Methods |
Consecutive patients (n = 116) undergoing RP at a single institution were randomized to either single- or double-layer urethrovesical (UV) anastomosis between August and December of 2007. Patients were contacted an average of 23.5 months postoperatively. A survey was performed by a third-party assessor blinded to the intervention, to evaluate urinary outcomes by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), pad usage, and pad weight for those with persistent incontinence.
Results |
Follow-up at 2 years was 86.5%. There was no statistically significant difference in demographic or preoperative functional variables between groups. There was no difference between groups regarding urine leakage weights, pad usage rates, long-term IPSS score, or IPSS bother score. Both patients in the cohort with incontinence and both with bladder neck contracture (requiring a single dilation) were in the single-layer UV anastomosis group (not significant), yet these patients had not experienced an anastomotic leak at one week.
Conclusions |
Long-term functional urinary outcomes were excellent for patients undergoing RP with either single- or double-layer UV anastomosis. IPSS scores and pad usage rates and weights were equivalent between groups. Although patients with single-layer anastomoses were more likely to have a leak at one-week cystogram and longer duration of catheter placement, this did not lead directly to bladder neck contracture or incontinence.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Vol 76 - N° 5
P. 1102-1107 - novembre 2010 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
