Home > Journals > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica > Past Issues > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 June;71(3) > Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 June;71(3):230-9

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as

 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE   

Minerva Urologica e Nefrologica 2019 June;71(3):230-9

DOI: 10.23736/S0393-2249.18.03260-5

Copyright © 2018 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Effect of puboprostatic ligament reconstruction on continence recovery after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: our initial experience

Stefano PULIATTI 1 , Ahmed ELSHERBINY 1, 2, Ahmed EISSA 1, 2, Giacomo PIROLA 1, Elena MORINI 1, Denise SQUECCO 1, Raffaele INZILLO 1, Ahmed ZOEIR 1, 2, Andrea ISEPPI 1, Maria C. SIGHINOLFI 1, Salvatore MICALI 1, Bernardo ROCCO 1, Giampaolo BIANCHI 1

1 Department of Urology, S. Agostino Estense Hospital, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; 2 Department of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tanta, Tanta, Egypt



BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer represents a serious health problem worldwide. Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard for management of localized prostate cancer. Urinary incontinence is among the most common complications affecting robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) patients’ postoperative quality of life. Several surgical modifications were introduced to overcome this problem including the puboprostatic ligament reconstruction. In this study, we discuss our technique of anterior reconstruction of the puboprostatic ligament during RALP and its effect on the continence outcome postoperatively.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, the data of 95 consecutive patients were analyzed and the patients were divided in two groups; the control group “group A” (47 patients) and the anterior reconstruction group “group B” (48 patients). The primary endpoint of this study was to compare both groups as regards the postoperative continence rates.
RESULTS: Complete continence (no pads) rates were reported at time of catheter removal (T0), 1 month (T1), 4 months (T4), 6 months (T6) and 12 months (T12) postoperatively. Moreover, the social continence (0-1 security pad) was reported at 12 months postoperatively. Complete continence was significantly different between both groups at T0 and T6 (P=0.022, and P=0.035 respectively). The social continence was not significantly different between both groups (85.1% vs. 89.6% in group A vs. group B).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite anterior reconstruction of the puboprostatic ligament showed no significant effect on the overall continence, it showed earlier return to continence up to 6 months, which supports the theory that anterior puboprostatic reconstruction may provide better immediate continence and shorten the time to continence for RALP patients. However, most of the published literature showed better continence rates with the total anatomical reconstruction (combined anterior and posterior). Therefore, we started to offer patients in our center total anatomical reconstruction during RALP.


KEY WORDS: Robotic surgical procedures; Laparoscopy; Prostatectomy, puboprostatic ligament reconstruction; Urinary incontinence

top of page