Abstract:Radical prostatectomy in patients who have had prior transurethral resection of the prostate has been reported to result in significant morbidity. From 1974 to 1982, 30 patients who had had previous transurethral resection of the prostate underwent radical perineal prostatectomy for localized prostatic cancer. Operative time and blood loss were similar to a group of patients who had not had prior transurethral resection of the prostate. Over-all, 3 patients (10 per cent) had total incontinence and 3 (10 per ce… Show more
“…Prior transurethral resection of the prostate was shown to increase the risk of incontinence [12]. However, other authors, as Bass and Barrett [5], Lindner et al [13], Bandhauer and Senn [14], Steiner et al [3] and Ramon et al [8], could not confirm this finding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Several factors that in all probability could influence the degree of incontinence after radical prostatectomy were investigated such as prior transurethral resection, age, operative techniques used, urodynamic parameters, adjuvant radiotherapy, surgical experience, the weight of the prostate, surgical margins status, pathological stage of the tumor and amount of blood loss during surgery [3,5,8,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The role of perineal reeducation in men with incontinence after prostatectomy has already been examined [27][28][29][30][31] but no controlled studies are yet available.…”
The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of incontinence after radical prostatectomy and to identify the various factors that can predict urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. Urinary continence following a radical prostatectomy was evaluated in 175 consecutive patients who underwent surgery. Immediately after catheter withdrawal, on the 15th postoperative day, 66% of the patients were incontinent. Varying degrees of incontinence persisted in 53% of the cohort at 1 month postoperatively. Thirty-three, 12, 8 and 2% of the patients remained incontinent at respectively 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of follow-up. A number of possible pre- and peroperative factors which might predict the continence status were examined and related to it at subsequent intervals after the surgical intervention. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles, prior transurethral resection of the prostate, preoperative micturition disorders and age were significant contributors in the prediction of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.
“…Prior transurethral resection of the prostate was shown to increase the risk of incontinence [12]. However, other authors, as Bass and Barrett [5], Lindner et al [13], Bandhauer and Senn [14], Steiner et al [3] and Ramon et al [8], could not confirm this finding.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Several factors that in all probability could influence the degree of incontinence after radical prostatectomy were investigated such as prior transurethral resection, age, operative techniques used, urodynamic parameters, adjuvant radiotherapy, surgical experience, the weight of the prostate, surgical margins status, pathological stage of the tumor and amount of blood loss during surgery [3,5,8,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. The role of perineal reeducation in men with incontinence after prostatectomy has already been examined [27][28][29][30][31] but no controlled studies are yet available.…”
The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of incontinence after radical prostatectomy and to identify the various factors that can predict urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. Urinary continence following a radical prostatectomy was evaluated in 175 consecutive patients who underwent surgery. Immediately after catheter withdrawal, on the 15th postoperative day, 66% of the patients were incontinent. Varying degrees of incontinence persisted in 53% of the cohort at 1 month postoperatively. Thirty-three, 12, 8 and 2% of the patients remained incontinent at respectively 3, 6, 9 and 12 months of follow-up. A number of possible pre- and peroperative factors which might predict the continence status were examined and related to it at subsequent intervals after the surgical intervention. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles, prior transurethral resection of the prostate, preoperative micturition disorders and age were significant contributors in the prediction of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.
“…A radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection or open surgery (incidental carcinoma) has a high complication rate [2, 28, 29] especially with respect to the continence rate and anastomotic stricture formation. Stricture rates up to 33% (5–33%) have been reported in such cases [8, 9, 29].…”
“…Preliminary data published so far suggest that laparoscopic radical prostatectomy has the same outcome as the open procedure in terms of continence and cancer control [1][2][3][4] . Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) has been shown to increase surgical difficulty during open radical retropubic [5] or perineal [6] prostatectomy without adversely affecting the outcome of the patients. We present our experience with LRP in patients following TURP.…”
Objectives: Previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was reported to impose difficulties during open radical prostatectomy. We describe our experience in laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) following transurethral resection of the prostate. Patients and Methods: The series included 35 patients: 22 patients underwent transperitoneal LRP (tpLRP) and 13 underwent extraperitoneal LRP (epLRP). The minimal interval between TURP and laparoscopy was 3 months. Patients’ charts were reviewed for their preoperative characteristics, intraoperative difficulties and complications, and outcome. Results: Patients’ mean age was 67.5 ± 4.4 years. 12 patients were cT1a,b and 23 patients were cT1c/T2. Twenty-two patients underwent tpLRP and 13 underwent epLRP. No statistical difference was found between the preoperative characteristics and the pathological results of cT1a,b vs. T1c/cT2 patients, or tpLRP vs. epLRP patients. Thirty-three procedures were completed laparoscopically and 2 were converted to open surgery. Perioperative complications included two leaking anastomoses, prolonged lymph drainage in 1 case, atelectasis (n = 1) and duodenal ulcer (n = 1). Twelve positive margins were noted, half of them in pT2 tumors. The mean follow-up was 28.5 months. Twenty-five of 35 patients had more than 12 months of follow-up. Among them 19 patients were completely continent (76%) and 6 (24%), reported mild stress incontinence. Conclusions: Although LRP following TURP is sometimes more technically difficult, simple modifications in the operative strategy help facilitate surgery. LRP following TURP favorably compares to open radical prostatectomy after TURP and laparoscopy in non-TURP patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.