Premium
How can we prevent postprostatectomy urinary incontinence by patient selection, and by preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative measures? International Consultation on Incontinence‐Research Society 2018
Author(s) -
Averbeck Marcio A.,
Marcelissen Tom,
Anding Ralf,
Rahnama'i Mohammad S.,
Sahai Arun,
Tubaro Andrea
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
neurourology and urodynamics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.918
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1520-6777
pISSN - 0733-2467
DOI - 10.1002/nau.23972
Subject(s) - medicine , urinary incontinence , urinary continence , prostatectomy , surgery , urology , artificial urinary sphincter , catheter , prostate , cancer
Aims To review current prevention strategies for urinary incontinence among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy (RP). Methods This is a consensus report of the proceedings of a research proposal from the annual International Consultation on Incontinence‐Research Society (ICI‐RS), 14 to 16 June 2018 (Bristol, UK): “How can we prevent postprostatectomy incontinence by patient selection, and by preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative measures?” Results Several baseline parameters were proposed as predicting factors for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), including age, tumor stage, prostate volume, preoperative lower urinary tract symptoms, maximum urethral closure pressure, and previous transurethral resection of the prostate. More recently, magnetic resonance imaging has been used to measure the membranous urethral length and sphincter volume. Peroperative techniques include preservative and reconstructive approaches. Bladder neck preservation improved early (6 months), as well as long‐term (>12 months) continence rates. Several prospective studies have reported earlier return of continence following preservation of puboprostatic ligaments, although no long‐term data are available. Preservation of the urethral length yielded controversial outcomes. Concerning postoperative strategies, it is probably optimal to remove the catheter in a window between 4 and 7 days if clinically appropriate; however, more research in this regard is still required. Postoperative PFME (preoperative pelvic floor muscle exercise) appears to speed up the recovery of continence after RP. Conclusions Conservative strategies to prevent PPUI include proper patient selection and PFME. Peroperative techniques have largely shown benefit in the short term. Postoperative complications and timing of trial without catheter can influence continence status. Future research initiatives must assess peroperative and postoperative measures, with longer‐term follow‐up.