Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Belastungsinkontinenz nach Prostatektomie in der Versorgungswirklichkeit

Ergebnisse einer Reha-Klinik

Stress incontinence after prostatectomy in treatment reality

Results from a rehabilitation clinic

  • 225 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

In der aktuellen Diskussion über die operative Therapie beim Prostatakarzinom spielt nicht nur das Ob, sondern auch das Wie eine große Rolle. Beide Fragestellungen hängen insofern eng zusammen, als z. B. eine mögliche Übertherapie durch eine Belastungsinkontinenz zusätzliche beschwert wird. Bei der häufigsten, lästigsten und teuersten Konsequenz einer Prostatektomie interessiert daher, welche Faktoren in der Versorgungswirklichkeit hierzu beitragen und möglicherweise zu vermeiden sind.

Patienten und Methode

Ausgewertet wurden die Krankenakten aller Patienten, die im Jahre 2009 in der Klinik am Kurpark in Bad Wildungen-Reinhardshausen nach einer radikalen Prostatektomie eine Anschlussheilbehandlung (AHB) erhielten nach den relevanten Ausgangs- und Endpunktdaten.

Ergebnisse

Von den 1750 Patienten waren bei der Aufnahme und bei der Entlassung 405 (23,1 %) kontinent. Weitere 189 (10,8 %) wurden es bis zur Entlassung. Insgesamt wurden 594 (33,9 %) Patienten kontinent entlassen. Von den 1155 (66,0 %) Patienten, die bei der Aufnahme und bei der Entlassung inkontinent waren, blieb dies während der AHB bei 727 (62,9 %) am Tage und bei 659 (57,1 %) in der Nacht gleich. Bei 387 (33,5 %) Betroffenen nahm die Inkontinenz am Tage und bei 370 (32,0 %) in der Nacht ab, bei 34 (3,4 %) nahm die Inkontinenz am Tage und bei 45 (3,9 %) in der Nacht zu. Ein Lebensalter von < 60 Jahren wirkte sich auf den Kontinenzerhalt vorteilhaft, eines von > 70 Jahren dagegen nachteilig aus. Ein Nervenerhalt förderte den Kontinenzerhalt signifikant. Ein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied zwischen den Ergebnissen der Operationsverfahren bestand nicht. Auch zwischen den Ergebnissen der Klinikarten [kommunale, konfessionelle, private Kliniken (KKPK), universitäre Kliniken (UK)] war ein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied nicht festzustellen. Allerdings war das Ergebnis eines Kontinenzerhalts (bis zum Abschluss der Reha-Behandlung) bei 594 (33,9 %) der Patienten nur von 94 (51,4 %) aller 183 Kliniken erzielt worden und zwar von 78 (49,7 %) der KKPK und von 14 (53,9 %) der UK. Von den zertifizierten Prostatazentren der KKPK bzw. der UK waren es 17 (81,0 %) bzw. 5 (83,3 %).

Schlussfolgerungen

In der Versorgungswirklichkeit einer AHB-Klinik wird bei etwa einem Drittel (33,9 %) aller Patienten nach einer Prostatektomie bis zur Entlassung ein Kontinenzerhalt erreicht. Ein Lebensalter < 60 Jahren wirkt sich hierbei als vorteilhaft, ein Lebensalter > 70 Jahren als nachteilig aus. Ein beid-/einseitiger Nervenerhalt verbesserte den Kontinenzerhalt signifikant. Das Operationsverfahren oder die Klinikart beeinflussen die Ergebnisse dagegen nicht signifikant. Allerdings wird der Kontinenzerhalt bei etwa einem Drittel (33,9 %) aller Patienten nur von etwa der Hälfte (51,4 %) aller Kliniken erzielt. Dies beweist, dass eine Belastungsinkontinenz nach einer Prostatektomie in der Versorgungswirklichkeit vermeidbar unterentwickelt und durch geeignete Operationstechniken der Sphinkterschonung nachweislich steigerungsfähig ist.

Abstract

Background

In the current discussion on the operative therapy of prostate cancer, not only“if” but also“how” play a major role. Both questions are closely related as, e.g. a possible excessive therapy will result in additional suffering due to stress incontinence. For the most common, troublesome and expensive consequences of prostatectomy it is of interest to know which factors play a role in treatment reality and which could possibly be avoided.

Patients and methods

The hospital records of all patients who underwent follow-up treatment after prostatectomy in 2009 at the clinic in the spa park in Bad Wildungen-Reinhardshausen were evaluated with respect to relevant data on outcome and clinical endpoints.

Results

Of the 1,750 patients 405 (23.1 %) were continent on admission and discharge and a further 189 (10.8 %) were continent on discharge so that a total of 594 patients (33.9 %) were continent on discharge. Of the 1,155 patients (66.0 %) who were incontinent on admission and discharge, this remained the same during the rehabilitation period for 727 (62.9 %) who were diurnally incontinent and 659 (57.1 %) who were nocturnally incontinent. For 387 patients (33.5 %) the incontinence decreased during the day and for 370 (32.0 %) during the night, for 34 (3.4 %) the incontinence increased during the day and for 45 (3.9 %) during the night. An age < 60 years was advantageous for maintaining continence and in contrast > 70 years was disadvantageous. Retention of nerves showed a significant effect on maintaining continence. Statistically significant differences between the results of operative procedures and the results of the type of clinic (KKP communal, confessional and private or UK university clinic) were not observed. However, the results of maintaining continence (up to termination of rehabilitation treatment) for the 594 patients (33.9 %) was only achieved by 94 (51 %) of all 183 clinics, i.e. 78 (49.7 %) of the KKP clinics and 14 (53.9 %) of UK clinics. For the certified prostate centers of KKP and UK clinics this amounted to 17 (81 %) and 5 (83.3 %), respectively.

Conclusions

In treatment reality of follow-up treatment of patients after prostatectomy in rehabilitation clinics approximately one third (33.9 %) achieved retention of continence up to discharge. An age < 60 years was advantageous and > 70 years disadvantageous. Bilateral and unilateral retention of nerves significantly improved retention of continence. The operative procedure and type of clinic did not significantly affect the results. However, in approximately one third of patients (33.9 %) retention of continence was achieved by only approximately one half (51.4 %) of all clinics. This shows that in treatment reality, stress incontinence following prostatectomy is avoidably underdeveloped and can be demonstrably increased by suitable operative techniques for sphincter protection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literatur

  1. 1.

    Abel EJ, Masterson TA, Warner JN et al (2009) Nerve-sparing prostatectomy and urinary function: a prospective analysis using validated quality-of-life measures. Urology 73:1336–1341

  2. 2.

    Abdollah F, Sun M, Suardi N et al (2012) Prediction of functional outcomes after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: results of conditional survival analyses. Eur Urol 62:42–52

  3. 3.

    Artibani W, Novara G (2008) Cancer-related outcome and learning curve in retropubic radical prostatectomy: „If you need an operation, the most important step is to choose the right surgeon“. Eur Urol 53:874–876

  4. 4.

    Berryhill R Jr, Jhaveri J, Yadav R et al (2008) Robotic prostatectomy: a review of outcomes compared with laparoscopic and open approaches. Urology 72:15–23

  5. 5.

    Bianco FJ Jr, Grignon DJ, Sakr WA et al (2003) Radical prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation: impact on positive margins. Eur Urol 43:461–466

  6. 6.

    Budäus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T et al (2009) Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56:317–324

  7. 7.

    Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A et al (2006) Nerve-sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy – does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol 176:189–195

  8. 8.

    Cambio AJ, Evans CP (2006) Minimising postoperative incontinence following radical prostatectomy: considerations and evidence. Eur Urol 50:903–913

  9. 9.

    Catalona WJ, Basler JW (1993) Return of erections and urinary continence following nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 150:905–907

  10. 10.

    Catalona WJ, Carvalhal GF, Mager DE, Smith DS (1999) Potency, continence and complicaton rates in 1,870 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 162:433–438

  11. 11.

    Cooperberg MR, Master VA, Carroll PR (2003) Health related quality of life significance of single pad urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170:512–515

  12. 12.

    Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Rogers E et al (1996) Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 156:1707–1713

  13. 13.

    Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W et al (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063

  14. 14.

    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:403–417

  15. 15.

    Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:418–430

  16. 16.

    Filocamo MT, Marzi VL, Popolo GD et al (2005) Effectiveness of pelvic floor rehabilitation treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Eur Urol 48:734–738

  17. 17.

    Franke JJ, Gilbert WB, Grier J et al (2000) Early post-prostatectomy pelvic floor biofeedback. J Urol 163:191–193

  18. 18.

    Graefen M, Walz J, Huland H (2006) Open retropubic nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 49:38–48

  19. 19.

    Hu JC, Gold KF, Pashos CL et al (2003) Temporal trends in radical prostatectomy complications from 1991 to 1998. J Urol 169(4):1443–1448

  20. 20.

    Joseph JV, Vicente I, Madeb R et al (2005) Robot-assisted vs pur laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: are there any differences? BJU Int 96:39–42

  21. 21.

    Joshi N, Blok W de, Muilekom E van, Poel H van de (2010) Impact of posterior musculofascial reconstruction on early continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective parallel group trial. Eur Urol 58:84–89

  22. 22.

    Kessler TM, Burkhard FC, Studer UE (2007) Nerve-sparing open retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 51:90–97

  23. 23.

    Ko YH, Coelho RF, Chauhan S et al (2012) Factors affecting return of continence 3 months after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis from a large, prospective data by a single surgeon. J Urol 187:190–195

  24. 24.

    Krupski TL, Saigal CS, Litwin MS (2003) Variation in continence and potency by definition. J Urol 170:1291–1294

  25. 25.

    Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Eggener SE et al (2004) Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostectomies. J Urol 172:2227–2231

  26. 26.

    Laaser MK, Lent V (2010) Methoden zur Erhaltung der Kontinenz nach Prostatektomie. 56. Kongress der NRW Gesellschaft für Urologie, Dortmund

  27. 27.

    Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN (2001) Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 166:1729–1733

  28. 28.

    Marien TP, Lepor H (2008) Does a nerve-sparing technique for potency affect continence after open radical retropubic prostatectomy? BJU Int 102:1581–1584

  29. 29.

    Mariotti G, Sciarra A, Gentilucci A et al (2009) Early recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy using early pelvic floor electrical stimulation and biofeedback associated treatment. J Urol 181:1788–1793

  30. 30.

    Mattei A, Naspro R, Annino F et al (2007) Tension and energy-free robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with interfascial dissection of the neurovascular bundles. Eur Urol 52:687–695

  31. 31.

    Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC et al (2012) Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena consensus panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381

  32. 32.

    Moore KN, Griffiths D, Hughton A (1999) Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial comparing pelvic muscle exercises with or without electrical stimulation. BJU Int 83:57–65

  33. 33.

    Moore BM, Savdie R, PeBenito RA et al (2011) The impact of nerve sparing on incidence and location of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 109:533–538

  34. 34.

    Mottrie A, Gallina A, De Vil P et al (2011) Balancing continence function and oncological outcomes during robot-assited radical prostatectomy (RALP). BJU Int 108:999–1006

  35. 35.

    Nilsson AE, Schumacher MC, Johansson E et al (2011) Age at surgery, educational and long-term urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108:1572–1577

  36. 36.

    Novara G, Ficarra V, Mocellin S et al (2012) Systemic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting oncological outcome after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:382–404

  37. 37.

    Novara G, Ficarra V, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systemic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes and complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:431–452

  38. 38.

    Overgard M, Angelsen A, Lydersen S, Morkved S (2008) Does physiotherapist-guided pelvic floor muscle training reduce urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy? A randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol 54:438–448

  39. 39.

    Parekh AR, Feng MI, Kirages D et al (2003) The role of pelvic floor exercises on post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 170:130–133

  40. 40.

    Patel VR, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Schatloff O et al (2011) Critical review of ‚pentafecta‘ outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in high-volume centres. BJU Int 108:1007–1017

  41. 41.

    Pick DL, Osann K, Skarecky D et al (2011) The impact of cavernosal nerve preservation on continence after robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108:1492–1496

  42. 42.

    Poon M, Ruckle H, Bamshad R et al (2000) Radical retropubic prostatectomy: bladder neck preservation versus reconstruction. J Urol 163:194–198

  43. 43.

    Reiter MA, Haferkamp A, Hohenfellner M (20010) Prävention der postoperativen Harninkontinenz. Urologe 49:489–497

  44. 44.

    Ribeiro LHS, Prota C, Gomez CM et al (2010) Long-term effect of early postoperative pelvic floor biofeedback on continence in men undergoing radical prostatectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 184:1034–1039

  45. 45.

    Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P et al (2007) Early continence after open radical prostatectomy with restoration of the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter. Eur Urol 52:376–383

  46. 46.

    Rocco B, Gregori A, Stener S et al (2009) Posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter allows a rapid recovery of continence after transperitoneal videolaparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 51:996–1003

  47. 47.

    Sacco E, Prayer-Galetti T, Pinto F et al (2006) Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up. BJU Int 97:1234–1241

  48. 48.

    Salomon L, Levrel O, Taille A de la et al (2002) Radical prostatectomy by the retropubic, perineal and laparoscopic approach: 12 years of experience in one center. Eur Urol 42:102–111

  49. 49.

    Schultheis HM, Strauß L (2006) Wildunger Stadieneinteilung der Harninkontinenz nach radikaler Prostatektomie und Zystektomie. 18. Kongress der Deutschen Kontinenz Gesellschaft, Dortmund

  50. 50.

    Srougi M, Nesrallah LJ, Kauffmann JR et al (2001) Urinary continence and pathological outcome after bladder neck preservation during radical retropubic prostatectomy. A randomized prospective trial. J Urol 165:815–818

  51. 51.

    Srougi M, Parankos M, Leite KM et al (2005) The influence of bladder neck mucosal eversion and early urinary extravasation on patient outcome after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int 95:757–760

  52. 52.

    Stothers L, Thom D, Calhoun E (2005) Urologic diseases in America project: urinary incontinence in males – demographics and economic burden. J Urol 173:1302–1308

  53. 53.

    Tannenbaum C, Coros J (2006) Outcomes in urinary incontinence: reconciling clinical relevance with scientific rigour. Eur Urol 53:1151–1161

  54. 54.

    Tewari A, Srivastava A, Huang MW et al (2011) Anatomical grades of nerve sparing: a risk-stratified approach to neural-hammock sparing during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP). BJU Int 108:984–992

  55. 55.

    Walsh PC (1998) Anatomical radical prostatectomy: evolution of the surgical technique. J Urol 160:2418–2424

  56. 56.

    Walsh PC (2000) Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate. J Urol 163:1802–1807

  57. 57.

    Walz J, Burnett AL, Costello AJ et al (2010) A critical analysis of the current knowledge of surgical anatomy related to optimization of cancer control and preservation of continence and erection in candidates for radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 57:179–192

  58. 58.

    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Markovich R et al (2000) Prospective assessment of patient reported urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 164:744–748

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Correspondence to Prof. Dr. V. Lent.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lent, V., Schultheis, H., Strauß, L. et al. Belastungsinkontinenz nach Prostatektomie in der Versorgungswirklichkeit. Urologe 52, 1104–1109 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-013-3201-x

Download citation

Schlüsselwörter

  • Prostatakarzinom
  • Operationsverfahren
  • Anschlussheilbehandlung
  • Nervenerhalt
  • Sphinkterschonung

Keywords

  • Prostate cancer
  • Operation procedure
  • Follow-up treatment
  • Nerve retention
  • Sphincter protection