Urinary continence recovery after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in relation to surgeon experience.

Journal: Journal of robotic surgery
Published Date:

Abstract

Urinary incontinence is one of the main concerns for patients after radical prostatectomy. Differences in surgical experience among surgeons could partly explain the wide range of frequencies observed. Our aim was to evaluate the association between the surgeons` experience and center caseload with relation to urinary continence recovery after Retzius-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RS-RARP). Prospective observational single-center study. Five surgeons consecutively operated 405 patients between July 2017 and February 2022. Continence recovery was evaluated with pad count and by employing the short form of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-SF), pre- and postoperatively at 1 year. Non-parametric tests were used. Median age was 63 years, 30% of patients presented with local advanced disease; the positive surgical margin rate (over 3 mm length) was 16%. Complication rate was 1% (Clavien-Dindo > II). One year after surgery, continence was assessed in 282 patients, of whom 87% were pad free and 51% never leaked (ICIQ-SF = 0). With respect to the mean annual number of procedures per surgeon, divided in < 20, 20-39 and ≥ 40, pad-free rates were achieved in 93%, 85%, and 84% and absence of urine leak rates in 47%, 62% and 48% of patients, respectively. Postoperative median ICIQ-SF was five. We acknowledge the limitation of a 12-month follow-up and the fact that we are a medium-volume center. There is no statistically significant association between continence recovery, surgeon's experience and center caseload. Continence recovery at 1 year after surgery is adequate and robust to surgeon's experience.

Authors

  • Jorge Fonseca
    Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.
  • Gonçalo Froes
    Faculté de Médecine et Médecine Dentaire, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
  • Maria Francisca Moraes-Fontes
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Imuno-Oncologia, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Jorge Rebola
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Rui Lúcio
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Miguel Almeida
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Ciprian Muresan
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Artur Palmas
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Ana Gaivão
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Serviço de Imagiologia, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Celso Matos
    Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Tiago Santos
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Daniela Dias
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Unidade de Próstata, Champalimaud Foundation, Av. Brasília, 1400-038, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Inês Sousa
    Fraunhofer Portugal AICOS, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.
  • Francisco Oliveira
    Centro Clínico Champalimaud, Serviço de Medicina Nuclear, Champalimaud Foundation, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Ricardo Ribeiro
    Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Oporto, Portugal.
  • Antonio Lopez-Beltran
    Department of Pathology and Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cordoba, Spain.
  • Avelino Fraga
    Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, Universidade do Porto, Oporto, Portugal.