Early Catheter Removal after Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Surgical Technique and Outcomes for the Aalst Technique (ECaRemA Study)

被引:47
作者
Gratzke, Christian [2 ,3 ]
Dovey, Zach [3 ]
Novara, Giacomo [3 ,4 ]
Geurts, Nicolas [1 ]
De Groote, Ruben [1 ]
Schatteman, Peter [1 ]
de Naeyer, Geert [1 ]
Gandaglia, Giorgio [1 ,3 ,5 ]
Mottrie, Alexandre [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Onze Lieve Vrouw Hosp, Dept Urol, Aalst, Belgium
[2] Ludwig Maximilians Univ Munchen, Dept Urol, Munich, Germany
[3] OLV Vattikuti Robot Surg Inst, Melle, Belgium
[4] Univ Padua, Urol Clin, Dept Surg Oncol & Gastroenterol, I-35100 Padua, Italy
[5] IRCCS Osped San Raffaele, Div Oncol, Unit Urol, Urol Res Inst, Milan, Italy
关键词
Anastomosis; Continence; Posterior reconstruction; Prostate cancer; Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; POSTERIOR RECONSTRUCTION; VESICOURETHRAL ANASTOMOSIS; URINARY-INCONTINENCE; CONTINENCE; TIME; RECOVERY; SUTURE; METAANALYSIS; RESTORATION; IMPROVES;
D O I
10.1016/j.eururo.2015.09.052
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
Background: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is a widespread option for the treatment of patients with clinically localised prostate cancer. Modifications in the surgical technique may help to further improve functional outcomes. Objective: To assess the outcome of early catheter removal 48 h after surgery, as opposed to standard catheter removal 6 d after surgery following RARP, using a newly developed surgical technique for posterior reconstruction and anastomosis (Aalst technique). Design, setting, and participants: Patients scheduled for RARP were prospectively scheduled for early catheter removal at postoperative d 2 (group A, n = 37) and standard catheter removal at postoperative d 6 (group B, n = 37). Surgical procedure: RARP was performed using the Da Vinci Si system. The Aalst technique for the urethro-vesical anastomosis including posterior reconstruction was used as previously described. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary endpoint was spontaneous voiding after catheter removal. Secondary endpoints were rate of anastomotic urinary leakage after catheter removal, presence and severity of urethral, perineal, and abdominal pain, as well as patient's bother after catheter removal using visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Rate and severity of urinary incontinence after catheter removal were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Module (ICIQ-MLUTS) questionnaire. Results and limitations: There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to baseline and perioperative parameters, as well as pathological features; however, significantly more patients underwent bilateral nerve-sparing procedures in group A (34 vs 23, p = 0.008). After catheter removal, patients in both groups showed spontaneous voiding, whereas only 11% and 8% of the patients in group A and group B experienced urinary retention after catheter removal (p = 0.7). Patients in group B had significantly higher maximum flow rates, but lower voided volumes after catheter removal in comparison with patients in group A (21 ml/s vs 10 ml/s, p <= 0.001 and 170 ml vs 200 ml, p <= 0.001, respectively). ICIQ-MLUTS questionnaire and VAS scores showed no significant differences between the groups at any time point. Conclusions: The Aalst technique allows the removal of catheters 2 d after RARP and results in spontaneous voiding. Early removal showed no increased rate of urinary leakage, no negative impact on short-term continence and on perineal, urethral or penile pain, and no increase in urinary retention rates. Future studies have to confirm these results with longer follow-up including detailed parameters on return to daily activity. Patient summary: We provide evidence that it is possible to remove the bladder catheter as early as 2 d after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy without any negative effects on voiding and pain parameters. Thus, leaving the hospital early without a catheter in place could represent a significant and relevant benefit for the patient. (C) 2015 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:917 / 923
页数:7
相关论文
共 27 条
  • [1] Posterior Reconstruction and Outcomes of Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy in a High-Risk Setting
    Anceschi, U.
    Gaffi, M.
    Molinari, C.
    Anceschi, C.
    [J]. JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2013, 17 (04) : 535 - 542
  • [2] Posterior Reconstruction Before Anastomosis Improves the Anastomosis Time During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Bernie, Aaron M.
    Caire, Arthur A.
    Conley, Sarah P.
    Oommen, Mathew
    Boylu, Ugur
    Thomas, Raju
    Lee, Benjamin R.
    [J]. JSLS-JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF LAPAROENDOSCOPIC SURGEONS, 2010, 14 (04) : 520 - 524
  • [3] Posterior Reconstruction Before Vesicourethral Anastomosis in Patients Undergoing Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy Leads to Earlier Return to Baseline Continence
    Brien, James C.
    Barone, Bethany
    Fabrizio, Michael
    Given, Robert
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2011, 25 (03) : 441 - 445
  • [4] Influence of Modified Posterior Reconstruction of the Rhabdosphincter on Early Recovery of Continence and Anastomotic Leakage Rates after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Coelho, Rafael F.
    Chauhan, Sanket
    Orvieto, Marcelo A.
    Sivaraman, Ananthakrishnan
    Palmer, Kenneth J.
    Coughlin, Geoff
    Patel, Vipul R.
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2011, 59 (01) : 72 - 80
  • [5] Best Evidence Regarding the Superiority or Inferiority of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Eifler, John B.
    Cookson, Michael S.
    [J]. UROLOGIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2014, 41 (04) : 493 - +
  • [6] Posterior Muscolofascial Reconstruction Incorporated into Urethrovescical Anastomosis During Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Ficarra, Vincenzo
    Gan, Melanie
    Borghesi, Marco
    Zattoni, Fabio
    Mottrie, Alexandre
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDOUROLOGY, 2012, 26 (12) : 1542 - 1545
  • [7] Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Reporting Urinary Continence Recovery After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy
    Ficarra, Vincenzo
    Novara, Giacomo
    Rosen, Raymond C.
    Artibani, Walter
    Carroll, Peter R.
    Costello, Anthony
    Menon, Mani
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Patel, Vipul R.
    Stolzenburg, Jens-Uwe
    Van der Poel, Henk
    Wilson, Timothy G.
    Zattoni, Filiberto
    Mottrie, Alexandre
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2012, 62 (03) : 405 - 417
  • [8] Posterior Rhabdosphincter Reconstruction During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Critical Analysis of Techniques and Outcomes
    Gautam, Gagan
    Rocco, Bernardo
    Patel, Vipul R.
    Zorn, Kevin C.
    [J]. UROLOGY, 2010, 76 (03) : 734 - 741
  • [9] Prospective evaluation of urinary incontinence, voiding symptoms and quality of life after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
    Geraerts, Inge
    Van Poppel, Hendrik
    Devoogdt, Nele
    Van Cleynenbreugel, Ben
    Joniau, Steven
    Van Kampen, Marijke
    [J]. BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 112 (07) : 936 - 943
  • [10] EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer. Part II: Treatment of Advanced, Relapsing, and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer
    Heidenreich, Axel
    Bastian, Patrick J.
    Bellmunt, Joaquim
    Bolla, Michel
    Joniau, Steven
    van der Kwast, Theodor
    Mason, Malcolm
    Matveev, Vsevolod
    Wiegel, Thomas
    Zattoni, Filiberto
    Mottet, Nicolas
    [J]. EUROPEAN UROLOGY, 2014, 65 (02) : 467 - 479