Harninkontinenz nach radikaler Prostatektomie: Risikofaktoren und Versorgungssituation

Zusammenfassung

Belastungsinkontinenz ist ein relevantes Risiko der radikalen Prostatektomie (RPE), welche die Lebensqualität der Betroffenen deutlich beeinträchtigt. Das Risiko eine Belastungsinkontinenz zu entwickeln hängt von prä-, intra- und postoperativen Faktoren ab. Insbesondere intraoperative Faktoren im Sinne unterschiedlicher OP-Techniken stehen dabei oft im Fokus, um die Kontinenzraten zu verbessern. Wenn es zur Belastungsinkontinenz nach RPE kommt, sollten die Betroffenen adäquat behandelt werden. Hier zeigen sich in Deutschland Hinweise auf ein Versorgungsdefizit. Zum einen gibt es Defizite in der Nutzung von Inkontinenzmaterialien. Zum anderen zeigt sich eine unzureichende operative Therapie der Belastungsinkontinenz nach RPE.

Abstract

Stress urinary incontinence is a relevant risk of radical prostatectomy (RP), which significantly affects patients’ quality of life. The risk of developing stress urinary incontinence depends on pre-, intra- and postoperative factors. In particular, intraoperative factors regarding different surgical techniques are often focused on in order to improve continence rates. If stress urinary incontinence develops after RPE, patients affected should be treated adequately. In this respect, there are indications of healthcare insufficiencies in Germany. On the one hand, these include deficits in the use of incontinence materials. On the other hand, surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence after RPE is insufficient.

Schlüsselwörter

Belastungsinkontinenz - radikale Prostatektomie - Versorgungssituation

Keywords

radical prostatectomy - healthcare utilisation - stress urinary incontinence

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 23. April 2023

Angenommen: 17. Mai 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. Juni 2023

• Literatur

• 1 Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 405-417
• 2 Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M. et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 664-675
• 3 Kao TC, Cruess DF, Garner D. et al. Multicenter patient self-reporting questionnaire on impotence, incontinence and stricture after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000; 163: 858-864
• 4 Borges RC, Tobias-Machado M, Gabriotti EN. et al. Post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: is there any discrepancy between medical reports and patients’ perceptions?. BMC Urol 2019; 19: 32
• 5 Wei JT, Dunn RL, Marcovich R. et al. Prospective assessment of patient reported urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000; 164: 744-748
• 6 Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ. et al. ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2004; 23: 322-330
• 7 Soto Gonzalez M, Da Cuna I Carrera, Lantaron Caeiro EM. et al. Correlation between the 1-hour and 24-hour pad test in the assessment of male patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Prog Urol 2018; 28: 536-541
• 8 Basiri A, de la Rosette JJ, Tabatabaei S. et al. Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner?. World J Urol 2018; 36: 609-621
• 9 Herlemann A, Cowan JE, Carroll PR. et al. Community-based Outcomes of Open versus Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2018; 73: 215-223
• 10 Baunacke M, Schmidt ML, Thomas C. et al. Long-term functional outcomes after robotic vs. retropubic radical prostatectomy in routine care: a 6-year follow-up of a large German health services research study. World J Urol 2020; 38: 1701-1709
• 11 Mandel P, Graefen M, Michl U. et al. The effect of age on functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 203 e11-e18
• 12 Novara G, Ficarra V, D'Elia C. et al. Evaluating urinary continence and preoperative predictors of urinary continence after robot assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2010; 184: 1028-1033
• 13 Lardas M, Grivas N, Debray TPA. et al. Patient- and Tumour-related Prognostic Factors for Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8: 674-689
• 14 Wei Y, Wu YP, Lin MY. et al. Impact of Obesity on Long-Term Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: A Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int 2018; 2018: 8279523
• 15 Yamada Y, Fujimura T, Fukuhara H. et al. Overactive bladder is a negative predictor of achieving continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2017; 24: 749-756
• 16 Tikkinen KA, Agarwal A, Griebling TL. Epidemiology of male urinary incontinence. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23: 502-508
• 17 Konety BR, Sadetsky N, Carroll PR. et al. Recovery of urinary continence following radical prostatectomy: the impact of prostate volume – analysis of data from the CaPSURE Database. J Urol 2007; 177: 1423-1425 discussion 5–6
• 18 Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D. et al. Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2007; 21: 184-188
• 19 Pettus JA, Masterson T, Sokol A. et al. Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2009; 182: 949-955
• 20 Kadono Y, Ueno S, Kadomoto S. et al. Use of preoperative factors including urodynamic evaluations and nerve-sparing status for predicting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Nerve-sparing technique contributes to the reduction of postprostatectomy incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2016; 35: 1034-1039
• 21 Chade DC, Shariat SF, Cronin AM. et al. Salvage radical prostatectomy for radiation-recurrent prostate cancer: a multi-institutional collaboration. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 205-210
• 22 Liao H, Duan X, Du Y. et al. Radical prostatectomy after previous transurethral resection of the prostate: oncological, surgical and functional outcomes-a meta-analysis. World J Urol 2020; 38: 1919-1932
• 23 Gerullis H, Quast S, Eimer C. et al. Sphincter lesions after radical prostatectomy-evaluation and classification. J Endourol 2011; 25: 1075-1080
• 24 Strasser H, Pinggera GM, Gozzi C. et al. Three-dimensional transrectal ultrasound of the male urethral rhabdosphincter. World J Urol 2004; 22: 335-338
• 25 Ganzer R, Stolzenburg JU, Neuhaus J. et al. Is the striated urethral sphincter at risk by standard suture ligation of the dorsal vascular complex in radical prostatectomy? An anatomic study. Urology 2014; 84: 1453-1458
• 26 de Carvalho PA, Barbosa J, Guglielmetti GB. et al. Retrograde Release of the Neurovascular Bundle with Preservation of Dorsal Venous Complex During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Optimizing Functional Outcomes. Eur Urol 2020; 77: 628-635
• 27 Montorsi F, Gandaglia G, Wurnschimmel C. et al. Re: Paolo Afonso de Carvalho, Joao A.B.A. Barbosa, Giuliano B. Guglielmetti, et al. Retrograde Release of the Neurovascular Bundle with Preservation of Dorsal Venous Complex During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Optimizing Functional Outcomes. Eur Urol 2020;77:628–635: Incredible Results for Robot-assisted Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Patients. Eur Urol 2021; 79: e44-e46
• 28 Wagaskar VG, Mittal A, Sobotka S. et al. Hood Technique for Robotic Radical Prostatectomy-Preserving Periurethral Anatomical Structures in the Space of Retzius and Sparing the Pouch of Douglas, Enabling Early Return of Continence Without Compromising Surgical Margin Rates. Eur Urol 2021; 80: 213-221
• 29 Ferreira Coelho R, Afonso de Carvalho P, Betoni Guglielmetti G. et al. Reply to Francesco Montorsi, Giorgio Gandaglia, Christoph Wurnschimmel, Markus Graefen, Alberto Briganti, and Hartwig Huland's Letter to the Editor re: Paolo Afonso de Carvalho, Joao A.B.A. Barbosa, Giuliano B. Guglielmetti, et al. Retrograde Release of the Neurovascular Bundle with Preservation of Dorsal Venous Complex During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Optimizing Functional Outcomes. Eur Urol 2020;77:628–35. Incredible Results for Robot-assisted Nerve-sparing Radical Prostatectomy in Prostate Cancer Patients: Rio de Janeiro is Still Beautiful. Eur Urol 2021; 79: e47-e49
• 30 Ma X, Tang K, Yang C. et al. Bladder neck preservation improves time to continence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 67463-67475
• 31 Koyanagi T. Studies on the sphincteric system located distally in the urethra: the external urethral sphincter revisited. J Urol 1980; 124: 400-406
• 32 Bellangino M, Verrill C, Leslie T. et al. Systematic Review of Studies Reporting Positive Surgical Margins After Bladder Neck Sparing Radical Prostatectomy. Curr Urol Rep 2017; 18: 99
• 33 Rudy DC, Woodside JR, Crawford ED. Urodynamic evaluation of incontinence in patients undergoing modified Campbell radical retropubic prostatectomy: a prospective study. J Urol 1984; 132: 708-712
• 34 Kadono Y, Nohara T, Kawaguchi S. et al. Investigating the mechanism underlying urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy: effectiveness of a longer urethral stump to prevent urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2018; 122: 456-562
• 35 Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T. et al. Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 320-329
• 36 Mungovan SF, Sandhu JS, Akin O. et al. Preoperative Membranous Urethral Length Measurement and Continence Recovery Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 368-378
• 37 Strasser H, Bartsch G. Anatomy and innervation of the rhabdosphincter of the male urethra. Semin Urol Oncol 2000; 18: 2-8
• 38 Dorschner W, Stolzenburg JU, Neuhaus J. Anatomic principles of urinary incontinence. Urologe A 2001; 40: 223-233
• 39 Mauroy B, Demondion X, Drizenko A. et al. The inferior hypogastric plexus (pelvic plexus): its importance in neural preservation techniques. Surg Radiol Anat 2003; 25: 6-15
• 40 Baader B, Herrmann M. Topography of the pelvic autonomic nervous system and its potential impact on surgical intervention in the pelvis. Clin Anat 2003; 16: 119-130
• 41 Ganzer R, Blana A, Gaumann A. et al. Topographical anatomy of periprostatic and capsular nerves: quantification and computerised planimetry. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 353-360
• 42 Clarebrough EE, Challacombe BJ, Briggs C. et al. Cadaveric analysis of periprostatic nerve distribution: an anatomical basis for high anterior release during radical prostatectomy?. J Urol 2011; 185: 1519-1525
• 43 van der Poel HG, de Blok W, Joshi N. et al. Preservation of lateral prostatic fascia is associated with urine continence after robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 892-900
• 44 Stolzenburg JU, Kallidonis P, Do M. et al. A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology 2010; 76: 743-748
• 45 Walz J, Graefen M, Huland H. Surgical anatomy of the prostate in the era of radical robotic prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol 2011; 21: 173-178
• 46 Wang X, Wu Y, Guo J. et al. Intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy improves patients' postoperative continence recovery and erectile function: A pooled analysis based on available literatures. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97: e11297
• 47 Nyberg M, Sjoberg DD, Carlsson SV. et al. Surgeon heterogeneity significantly affects functional and oncological outcomes after radical prostatectomy in the Swedish LAPPRO trial. BJU Int 2020; 127: 361-368
• 48 Fossati N, Di Trapani E, Gandaglia G. et al. Assessing the Impact of Surgeon Experience on Urinary Continence Recovery After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results of Four High-Volume Surgeons. J Endourol 2017; 31: 872-877
• 49 Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016; 388: 1057-1066
• 50 Carlsson S, Drevin L, Loeb S. et al. Population-based study of long-term functional outcomes after prostate cancer treatment. BJU Int 2016; 117: E36-E45
• 51 Adam M, Tennstedt P, Lanwehr D. et al. Functional Outcomes and Quality of Life After Radical Prostatectomy Only Versus a Combination of Prostatectomy with Radiation and Hormonal Therapy. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 330-336
• 52 Anderson CA, Omar MI, Campbell SE. et al. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 1: CD001843
• 53 Katz G, Rodriguez R. Changes in continence and health-related quality of life after curative treatment and watchful waiting of prostate cancer. Urology 2007; 69: 1157-1160
• 54 Lent V, Schultheis M. Economic importance of postoperative urinary incontinence. Urologe A 2015; 54: 1564-6
• 55 Macaulay M, Hislop Lennie K, Clark-O’Neill S. et al. Catheters and incontinence after radical prostatectomy: Preparing (but not scaring) men. https://www.urologynews.uk.com/features/features/post/catheters-and-incontinence-after-radical-prostatectomy-preparing-but-not-scaring-men 2018
• 56 Macaulay M, Broadbridge J, Gage H. et al. A trial of devices for urinary incontinence after treatment for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2015; 116: 432-442
• 57 Jayadevappa R, Schwartz JS, Chhatre S. et al. The burden of out-of-pocket and indirect costs of prostate cancer. Prostate 2010; 70: 1255-1264
• 58 Stiftung Warentest. Kein Verlass auf Profis. Beratung bei Inkontinenz. Stiftung Warentest 2017; 90-95
• 59 Wiedemann A. S2k-Leitlinie Hilfmittelberatung. Arbeitskreis „Geriatrische Urologie“ der DGU e.V.; 2020
• 60 Nelson M, Dornbier R, Kirshenbaum E. et al. Use of Surgery for Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence. J Urol 2020; 203: 786-791
• 61 Parry MG, Skolarus TA, Nossiter J. et al. Urinary incontinence and use of incontinence surgery after radical prostatectomy: a national study using patient-reported outcomes. BJU Int 2022; 130: 84-91
• 62 Baunacke M, Schmidt ML, Groeben C. et al. Treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction: there is insufficient utilisation of care in German cancer survivors. World J Urol 2021; 39: 2929-2936
• 63 Baunacke M, Abbate E, Eisenmenger N. et al. Insufficient utilization of care in male incontinence surgery: health care reality in Germany from 2006 to 2020 and a systematic review of the international literature. World J Urol 2023;
• 64 Litwin MS, Lubeck DP, Henning JM. et al. Differences in urologist and patient assessments of health related quality of life in men with prostate cancer: results of the CaPSURE database. J Urol 1998; 159: 1988-1992
• 65 Smoger SH, Felice TL, Kloecker GH. Urinary incontinence among male veterans receiving care in primary care clinics. Ann Intern Med 2000; 132: 547-551