The preoperative pad test as a predictor of urinary incontinence and quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective, observational, clinical study
- 60 Downloads
To assess whether the preoperative 1-h pad test could predict postoperative urinary incontinence and quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
A total of 329 patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy between 2013 and 2016 were prospectively enrolled in this study. These patients were divided into the preoperative urinary continence group and the preoperative urinary incontinence group according to the 1-h pad test. The time to achieve urinary continence, lower urinary tract function evaluated by uroflowmetry and post-voided residual urine volume, and quality of life evaluated by King’s Health Questionnaire and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form were compared between these two groups.
There were 190 patients (58%) in the preoperative urinary continence group (1-h pad test ≤ 2 g) and 139 patients (42%) in the preoperative urinary incontinence group (1-h pad test > 2 g). In the preoperative urinary continence/incontinence groups, 83%/76% of patients achieved continence within 12 months, respectively, and urinary incontinence remained significantly longer in the preoperative incontinence group than in the preoperative continence group (P = 0.042). Although there were no significant differences in all quality of life items between the two groups before surgery, several items were significantly higher in the preoperative urinary continence group.
Achievement of urinary continence and improvement of urinary quality of life are delayed in patients with preoperative urinary incontinence assessed by the 1-h pad test. The preoperative 1-h pad test could be a useful predictor of prolonged urinary incontinence and poor quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
KeywordsContinence King’s Health Questionnaire Quality of life Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy Urinary incontinence
The authors would like to thank everyone involved in this paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Patel VR, Sivaraman A, Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, Camacho I, Coughlin G, Rocco B (2011) Pentafecta: a new concept for reporting outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 59(5):702–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.01.032 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Jereczek-Fossa BA, Zerini D, Fodor C, Santoro L, Maucieri A, Gerardi MA, Vischioni B, Cambria R, Garibaldi C, Cattani F, Vavassori A, Matei DV, Musi G, De Cobelli O, Orecchia R (2014) Reporting combined outcomes with Trifecta and survival, continence, and potency (SCP) classification in 337 patients with prostate cancer treated with image-guided hypofractionated radiotherapy. BJU Int 114(6b):E3–E10. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.12530 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Van Kampen M, Geraerts I, De Weerdt W, Van Poppel H (2009) An easy prediction of urinary incontinence duration after retropubic radical prostatectomy based on urine loss the first day after catheter withdrawal. J Urol 181(6):2641–2646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.025 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Murphy G, Haddock P, Doak H, Jackson M, Dorin R, Meraney A, Kesler S, Staff I, Wagner JR (2015) Urinary bother as a predictor of postsurgical changes in urinary function after robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology 86(4):817–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.04.041 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Nguyen L, Jhaveri J, Tewari A (2008) Surgical technique to overcome anatomical shortcoming: balancing post-prostatectomy continence outcomes of urethral sphincter lengths on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 179(5):1907–1911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.036 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 6.Tan HJ, Xiong S, Laviana AA, Chuang RJ, Treat E, Walsh PC, Hu JC (2016) Technique and outcomes of bladder neck intussusception during robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: A parallel comparative trial. Urol Oncol 34(12):529.e521–529.e527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.01.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lavigueur-Blouin H, Noriega AC, Valdivieso R, Hueber PA, Bienz M, Alhathal N, Latour M, Trinh QD, El-Hakim A, Zorn KC (2015) Predictors of early continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Can Urol Assoc J 9(1–2):e93–97. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2086 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Bahler CD, Sundaram CP, Kella N, Lucas SM, Boger MA, Gardner TA, Koch MO (2016) A parallel randomized clinical trial examining the return of urinary continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with or without a small intestinal submucosa bladder neck sling. J Urol 196(1):179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.01.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell’Orto P, Rocco B, Bozzini G, Gazzano G, Morabito A (2006) Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 175(6):2201–2206. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(06)00262-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Haga N, Aikawa K, Hoshi S, Yabe M, Akaihata H, Hata J, Satoh Y, Ogawa S, Ishibashi K, Kojima Y (2016) Postoperative urinary incontinence exacerbates nocturia-specific quality of life after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 23(10):873–878. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13163 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Haga N, Hata J, Matsuoka K, Koguchi T, Akaihata H, Kataoka M, Sato Y, Ogawa S, Ishibashi K, Kojima Y (2018) The impact of nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on lower urinary tract function: prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and frequency volume charts. Neurourol Urodyn 37(1):322–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23297 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Kaiho Y, Masuda H, Takei M, Hirayama T, Mitsui T, Yokoyama M, Kitta T, Kawamorita N, Nakagawa H, Iwamura M, Arai Y (2018) Surgical and patient reported outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Urol 199(1):245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.077 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Kadono Y, Nohara T, Kadomoto S, Nakashima K, Iijima M, Shigehara K, Narimoto K, Izumi K, Mizokami A (2016) Investigating urinary conditions prior to robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in search of a desirable method for evaluating post-prostatectomy incontinence. Anticancer Res 36(8):4293–4298PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 21.von Bodman C, Matsushita K, Savage C, Matikainen MP, Eastham JA, Scardino PT, Rabbani F, Akin O, Sandhu JS (2012) Recovery of urinary function after radical prostatectomy: predictors of urinary function on preoperative prostate magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 187(3):945–950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Kadono Y, Ueno S, Iwamoto D, Takezawa Y, Nohara T, Izumi K, Mizokami A, Namiki M (2015) Chronological urodynamic evaluation of changing bladder and urethral functions after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 85(6):1441–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.02.029 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L, Albala DM, Price MM, Polascik TJ, Robertson CN, Tewari AK, Moul JW (2008) Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54(4):785–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.06.063 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kakehi Y, Kamoto T, Shiraishi T, Ogawa O, Suzukamo Y, Fukuhara S, Saito Y, Tobisu K, Kakizoe T, Shibata T, Fukuda H, Akakura K, Suzuki H, Shinohara N, Egawa S, Irie A, Sato T, Maeda O, Meguro N, Sumiyoshi Y, Suzuki T, Shimizu N, Arai Y, Terai A, Kato T, Habuchi T, Fujimoto H, Niwakawa M (2008) Prospective evaluation of selection criteria for active surveillance in Japanese patients with stage T1cN0M0 prostate cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol 38(2):122–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hym161 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Kelleher CJ, Cardozo LD, Khullar V, Salvatore S (1997) A new questionnaire to assess the quality of life of urinary incontinent women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104(12):1374–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11006.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Haga N, Ogawa S, Yabe M, Akaihata H, Hata J, Sato Y, Ishibashi K, Hasegawa O, Kikuchi K, Shishido F, Kojima Y (2015) Factors contributing to early recovery of urinary continence analyzed by pre- and postoperative pelvic anatomical features at robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 29(6):683–690. https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2014.0708 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Haga N, Ogawa S, Yabe M, Akaihata H, Hata J, Sato Y, Ishibashi K, Hasegawa O, Kikuchi K, Shishido F, Kojima Y (2014) Association between postoperative pelvic anatomic features on magnetic resonance imaging and lower tract urinary symptoms after radical prostatectomy. Urology 84(3):642–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.044 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Novara G, Ficarra V, D’Elia C, Secco S, Cioffi A, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2010) Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 184(3):1028–1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.04.069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 34.Lee JK, Assel M, Thong AE, Sjoberg DD, Mulhall JP, Sandhu J, Vickers AJ, Ehdaie B (2015) Unexpected long-term improvements in urinary and erectile function in a large cohort of men with self-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 68(5):899–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.074 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar