Bladder mucosal smoothness predicts early recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

被引:0
|
作者
Yu, Le [1 ]
Yan, Ye [1 ]
Chu, Hongling [1 ]
Deng, Shaohui [1 ]
Ye, Jianfei [1 ]
Wang, Guoliang [1 ]
Huang, Yi [1 ]
Zhang, Fan [1 ,2 ]
Zhang, Shudong [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Peking Univ Third Hosp, Dept Urol, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ Third Hosp, Dept Urol, 49 North Garden Rd, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
来源
BMC UROLOGY | 2025年 / 25卷 / 01期
基金
中国国家自然科学基金;
关键词
Prostate cancer; Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; Urinary incontinence; Prediction model; Postoperative complications; OVERACTIVE BLADDER; WALL THICKNESS; INCONTINENCE;
D O I
10.1186/s12894-024-01682-7
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundTo propose the bladder mucosal smoothness (BMS) grade and validate a predictive model including MRI parameters preoperatively that can evaluate the early recovery of urinary continence (UC) after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP). MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 203 patients (83 patients experienced UI at the three-month follow-up) who underwent LRP in our medical center and were diagnosed with prostate cancer (PCa) from June 2016 to March 2020. Patients' clinicopathological data were collected. Prostate volume (PV), membranous urethra length (MUL), intravesical prostatic protrusion length (IPPL), and BMS grade were measured by MRI. The total sample was randomly divided into a training set (n = 142) and a validation set (n = 61). A model was developed to predict the risk of urinary incontinence (UI) at three months after LRP. ResultsAge group, clinical T stage group, BMS grade group, PV group, IPPL group, and MUL group differed significantly between patients in the UI group and the UC group (all P values < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified 3 MRI-related predictors selected for the prediction model: BMS grade (1 odds ratio [OR] 0.17, 95% CI 0.11-0.66; P value = 0.024) (2 + 3 OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.66; P value = 0.011), IPPL (> 5 mm OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.1-0.64; P = 0.004), and MUL (>= 14 mm OR 6.41, 95% CI 2.72-15.09; P value < 0.001). The model achieved a highest area under the curve of 0.900 in the training set and the validation set. The sensitivity and specificity of the prediction model were 0.800 and 0.816. ConclusionOur study confirmed that patients with lower BMS grade are associated with early recovery of urinary continence after LRP. A prediction model was developed and validated to evaluate the early recovery of urinary continence after LRP. Clinical trial numberNot applicable.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Systematic review on urinary continence rates after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Geraghty, Keith
    Keane, Kevin
    Davis, Niall
    IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 193 (03) : 1603 - 1612
  • [22] Impact of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Anatomic Features on Urinary Continence Recovery after Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
    Yang, Bin
    Zhang, Fan
    Xiao, Chunlei
    Lu, Jian
    Ma, Lulin
    Huang, Yi
    UROLOGIA INTERNATIONALIS, 2020, 104 (3-4) : 239 - 246
  • [23] Postoperative cystogram findings predict recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy
    Fukui, Shinji
    Kagebayashi, Yoriaki
    Iemura, Yusuke
    Matsumura, Yoshiaki
    Samma, Shoji
    LUTS-LOWER URINARY TRACT SYMPTOMS, 2019, 11 (03) : 143 - 150
  • [24] Early urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in older Australian men
    Basto, Marnique Y.
    Vidyasagar, Chinni
    te Marvelde, Luc
    Freeborn, Helen
    Birch, Emma
    Landau, Adam
    Murphy, Declan G.
    Moon, Daniel
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2014, 114 : 29 - 33
  • [25] Impact of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy on Urinary Continence Recovery After Radical Prostatectomy
    Suardi, Nazareno
    Gallina, Andrea
    Lista, Giuliana
    Gandaglia, Giorgio
    Abdollah, Firas
    Capitanio, Umberto
    Dell'Oglio, Paolo
    Nini, Alessandro
    Salonia, Andrea
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Briganti, Alberto
    EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (03) : 546 - 551
  • [26] The Impact of Three Different Bladder Neck Reconstruction Techniques on Urinary Continence after Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy
    Zhang, Shaobo
    Liang, Chao
    Qian, Jian
    Liu, Yiyang
    Lv, Qiang
    Li, Jie
    Li, Pu
    Shao, Pengfei
    Wang, Zengjun
    JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2020, 34 (06) : 663 - 670
  • [27] Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation: positive surgical margin and urinary continence status
    Golabek, Tomasz
    Jaskulski, Jaroslaw
    Jarecki, Piotr
    Dudek, Przemyslaw
    Szopinski, Tomasz
    Chlosta, Piotr
    VIDEOSURGERY AND OTHER MINIINVASIVE TECHNIQUES, 2014, 9 (03) : 362 - 370
  • [28] Development and validation of nomograms to predict the recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy: comparisons between immediate, early, and late continence
    Seong Jin Jeong
    Jae Seung Yeon
    Jeong Keun Lee
    Woo Heon Cha
    Jin Woo Jeong
    Byung Ki Lee
    Sang Cheol Lee
    Chang Wook Jeong
    Jeong Hyun Kim
    Sung Kyu Hong
    Seok-Soo Byun
    Sang Eun Lee
    World Journal of Urology, 2014, 32 : 437 - 444
  • [29] Total pelvic floor reconstruction during non-nerve-sparing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Impact on early recovery of urinary continence
    Hoshi, Akio
    Nitta, Masahiro
    Shimizu, Yuuki
    Higure, Taro
    Kawakami, Masayoshi
    Nakajima, Nobuyuki
    Hanai, Kazuya
    Nomoto, Takeshi
    Usui, Yukio
    Terachi, Toshiro
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2014, 21 (11) : 1132 - 1137
  • [30] Retzius-sparing technique independently predicts early recovery of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Kadhim, Hassan
    Ang, Kar Mun
    Tan, Wei Shen
    Nathan, Arjun
    Pavan, Nicola
    Mazzon, Giorgio
    Al-Kadhi, Omar
    Di, Gu
    Dinneen, Eoin
    Briggs, Tim
    Kelkar, Anand
    Rajan, Prabhakar
    Nathan, Senthil
    Kelly, John D.
    Sooriakumaran, Prasanna
    Sridhar, Ashwin
    JOURNAL OF ROBOTIC SURGERY, 2022, 16 (06) : 1419 - 1426