Title of article :
A comparison of bladder neck preservation and bladder neck reconstruction for urinary incontinence after radical retro pubic prostatectomy
Author/Authors :
Izadpanahi, Mohammad Hossein Departments of Urology - and Department of Medical Students’ Research Committee - Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Honarmand, Ramin Departments of Urology - and Department of Medical Students’ Research Committee - Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Khorrami, Mohammad Hataf Departments of Urology - and Department of Medical Students’ Research Committee - Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Najarzadegan, Mohammad Reza Departments of Urology - and Department of Medical Students’ Research Committee - Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Mohammadi Sichani, Mehrdad Departments of Urology - and Department of Medical Students’ Research Committee - Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan , Alizadeh, Farshid Departments of Urology - and Department of Medical Students’ Research Committee - Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan
Abstract :
Background: Prostate cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide and will include about 30% of all malignancies in men. Since
the initial report of the anatomic radical prostatectomy, refinements in the surgical technique have been made. Several studies show
that bladder neck preservation (BNP) during radical prostatectomy makes improve early return of urinary continence, erectile function
or both. However, some clinical trials have suggested little difference between the return of continence while using modifications. In
this study, we compared outcomes of BNP and bladder neck reconstruction (BNR) during radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP).
Materials and Methods: This prospective study was performed on 60 patients at a referral university hospital from March 2010 to
March 2012. Study population was all patients candidate for RRP (RRP in this period. All patients divided into two groups, A and
B (30 patients in each group). Group A (n = 30) who preserved bladder neck (BNP) and Group B (n = 30) who had BNR. Prostate
specific antigen (PSA) before and at 2, 6, 9, 12 and18 months after surgery, anastomotic stricture symptoms, positive bladder neck
margin, Gleason score and urine incontinence were compared between two groups. Also, we compared bladder neck contracture,
urinary continence and positive surgical margin rates after BNP and BNR while retropubic prostatectomy in 24 months period
follow-up. Results: The mean age of the patients was 61.81 ± 7.15 years (range, 50-74 years). After a follow-up period of 24 months,
the PSA rising was not different between the two groups. After 2 months, 19 (63.33%) of patients in A group and the same number
in B group were continent (P = 0.78). Stricture of the bladder neck at the anastomosis site requiring transurethral dilation occurred
in 7 (23.33%) and 3 (10.0%) patients in groups A and B, respectively (P = 0.04). Conclusion: Although there was no difference in
prevalence and duration of return of urinary continence after the operation between two groups, but results of our study showed that
stenosis of the bladder neck was lower in BNP. Hence in the group of BNP, need for further operation and overflow incontinency due
to the obstruction of urinary tract will be less likely than BNR and patients have better long time (24 months) urinary continence.
Keywords :
urinary incontinenc , prostatectomy , prostate cancer , bladder neck reconstruction , Bladder neck preservation
Journal title :
Astroparticle Physics