De Novo Detrusor Underactivity and Other Urodynamic Findings after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Baseline Characteristics
3.2. Postoperative Reporting
3.2.1. Detrusor Contractility
3.2.2. Detrusor Overactivity
3.2.3. Bladder Outlet Obstruction
3.2.4. Bladder Compliance
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
IBC | impaired bladder compliance, |
BOO | bladder outlet obstruction, |
DO | detrusor overactivity, |
DU | detrusor underactivity. |
References
- Ferlay, J.; Soerjomataram, I.; Dikshit, R.; Eser, S.; Mathers, C.; Rebelo, M.; Parkin, D.M.; Forman, D.; Bray, F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 136, E359–E386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cochetti, G.; de Vermandois, J.A.R.; Maulà, V.; Giulietti, M.; Cecati, M.; Del Zingaro, M.; Cagnani, R.; Suvieri, C.; Paladini, A.; Mearini, E. Role of miRNAs in prostate cancer: Do we really know everything? Urol. Oncol. 2020, 38, 623–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cochetti, G.; Del Zingaro, M.; Ciarletti, S.; Paladini, A.; Felici, G.; Stivalini, D.; Cellini, V.; Mearini, E. New Evolution of Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: A Single Center Experience with PERUSIA Technique. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, D.P.; King, M.T.; Egger, S.; Berry, M.P.; Stricker, P.D.; Cozzi, P.; Ward, J.; O’Connell, D.L.; Armstrong, B.K. Quality of life three years after diagnosis of localised prostate cancer: Population based cohort study. BMJ 2009, 339, b4817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Porena, M.; Mearini, E.; Mearini, L.; Vianello, A.; Giannantoni, A. Voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy: More than external urethral sphincter deficiency. Eur. Urol. 2007, 52, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, N.F.; Canagasingham, A.; Van Diepen, D.; Pirpiris, A.; Tse, V.; Leslie, S.; Thanigasalam, R.; Chan, L. Lower Urinary Tract Functional Assessment of Men Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy: Correlation of Preoperative Clinical and Urodynamic Parameters. Int. Neurourol. J. 2021, 25, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, H.H.; Crump, R.T.; Charbonneau, C.; Khan, A.; Barton, C.; Brotherhood, H.; Jiang, J.; Carlson, K.V.; Baverstock, R.J. Baseline patient reported outcomes data shows high prevalence of overactive bladder, sexual dysfunction, depression and anxiety in Canadian men with newly diagnosed localized prostate cancer. Transl. Urol. 2020, 9, 2046–2053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thiruchelvam, N.; Cruz, F.; Kirby, M.; Tubaro, A.; Chapple, C.R.; Sievert, K.D. A review of detrusor overactivity and the overactive bladder after radical prostate cancer treatment. BJU Int. 2015, 116, 853–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Matsukawa, Y.; Yoshino, Y.; Fujita, T.; Funahashi, Y.; Majima, T.; Ishida, S.; Kato, M.; Gotoh, M. Daily urine loss immediately after urethral catheter removal may be an effective predictor of long-term urinary incontinence following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Clin. Pract. 2021, 75, e13736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groutz, A.; Blaivas, J.G.; Chaikin, D.C.; Weiss, J.P.; Verhaaren, M. The pathophysiology of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: A clinical and video urodynamic study. J. Urol. 2000, 163, 1767–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majima, T.; Matsukawa, Y.; Funahashi, Y.; Kato, M.; Sassa, N.; Gotoh, M. Urodynamic evaluation before and after to RARP to identify pre and intraoperative factors affecting postoperative continence. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2021, 40, 1147–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoyland, K.; Vasdev, N.; Abrof, A.; Boustead, G. Post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: Etiology and prevention. Rev. Urol. 2014, 16, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Boni, A.; Cochetti, G.; Del Zingaro, M.; Paladini, A.; Turco, M.; de Vermandois, J.A.R.; Mearini, E. Uroflow stop test with electromyography: A novel index of urinary continence recovery after RARP. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2019, 51, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moher, D.; Shamseer, L.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst. Rev. 2015, 4, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tacconelli, E. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2010, 10, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Constantinou, C.E.; Freiha, F.S.; Siroky, M.B. Impact of radical prostatectomy on the characteristics of bladder and urethra. J. Urol. 1992, 148, 1215–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubbelman, Y.; Groen, J.; Wildhagen, M.; Rikken, B.; Bosch, R. Quantification of changes in detrusor function and pressure-flow parameters after radical prostatectomy: Relation to postoperative continence status and the impact of intensity of pelvic floor muscle exercises. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2012, 31, 637–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannantoni, A.; Mearini, E.; Di Stasi, S.M.; Mearini, L.; Bini, V.; Pizzirusso, G.; Porena, M. Assessment of bladder and urethral sphincter function before and after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J. Urol. 2004, 171, 1563–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giannantoni, A.; Mearini, E.; Zucchi, A.; Costantini, E.; Mearini, L.; Bini, V.; Porena, M. Bladder and urethral sphincter function after radical retropubic prostatectomy: A prospective long-term study. Eur. Urol. 2008, 54, 657–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hellström, P.; Lukkarinen, O.; Kontturi, M. Urodynamics in radical retropubic prostatectomy. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. 1989, 23, 21–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, H.C.; Jiang, Y.H.; Lin, V.C.H.; Tsai, Y.C.; Kuo, H.C. Possible predictor of early recovery on urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy–Bladder neck level and urodynamic parameters. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2019, 118, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iguchi, K.; Tanaka, T.; Minami, A.; Kuratsukuri, K.; Uchida, J.; Nakatani, T. Characteristics of urodynamic study parameters associated with intermediate-term continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in elderly patients. Aging Male 2019, 23, 1039–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, Y.H.; Hong, Y.L.; Kuo, H.C. Urodynamic changes in patients with prostate cancer undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: A comparison with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urol. Sci. 2017, 28, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- John, H.; Sullivan, M.P.; Bangerter, U.; Hauri, D.; Yalla, S.V. Effect of radical prostatectomy on sensory threshold and pressure transmission. J. Urol. 2000, 163, 1761–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadono, Y.; Ueno, S.; Iwamoto, D.; Takezawa, Y.; Nohara, T.; Izumi, K.; Mizokami, A.; Namiki, M. Chronological Urodynamic Evaluation of Changing Bladder and Urethral Functions After Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy. Urology 2015, 85, 1441–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kadono, Y.; Ueno, S.; Kadomoto, S.; Iwamoto, H.; Takezawa, Y.; Nakashima, K.; Nohara, T.; Izumi, K.; Mizokami, A.; Gabata, T.; 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. [Google Scholar]
- Kadono, Y.; Ueno, S.; Yaegashi, H.; Ofude, M.; Izumi, K.; Maeda, Y.; Mizokami, A.; Miwa, S.; Miyagi, T.; Namiki, M. Urodynamic evaluation before and immediately after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 2014, 84, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kitta, T.; Kanno, Y.; Chiba, H.; Moriya, K.; Maruyama, S.; Abe, T.; Shinohara, N. Radical prostatectomy restores detrusor contraction pattern according to pressure flow parameters. Int. J. Urol. 2017, 24, 301–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kleinhans, B.; Gerharz, E.; Melekos, M.; Weingärtner, K.; Kälble, T.; Riedmiller, H. Changes of urodynamic findings after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur. Urol. 1999, 35, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majoros, A.; Bach, D.; Keszthelyi, A.; Hamvas, A.; Romics, I. Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy (prospective urodynamic study). Neurourol. Urodyn. 2006, 25, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matsukawa, Y.; Hattori, R.; Komatsu, T.; Funahashi, Y.; Sassa, N.; Gotoh, M. De novo detrusor underactivity after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 2010, 17, 643–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Matsukawa, Y.; Hattori, R.; Yoshikawa, Y.; Ono, Y.; Gotoh, M. Laparoscopic versus open radical prostatectomy: Urodynamic evaluation of vesicourethral function. Int. J. Urol. 2009, 16, 393–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mitsui, T.; Tanaka, H.; Harabayashi, T.; Moriya, K.; Maruyama, S.; Abe, T.; Sazawa, A.; Shinohara, N.; Nonomura, K. Changes in Urodynamics and Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms after Radical Prostatectomy: Implications of Preoperative Detrusor Contractility. LUTS Low. Urin. Tract Symptoms 2012, 4, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mucciardi, G.; Galì, A.; Inferrera, A.; Di Benedetto, A.; Macchione, L.; Mucciardi, M.; Magno, C. Longitudinal observational cohort study about detrusor underactivity as a risk factor for bladder neck contracture after retropubic radical prostatectomy: Preliminary results. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2013, 45, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Natsume, O.; Kondo, H.; Cho, M.; Fujimoto, K.; Ozono, S.; Hirao, Y. The impact of radical prostatectomy on patient well-being: A prospective urodynamic study focused on detrusor function. Hinyokika Kiyo 2004, 50, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Noguchi, M.; Shimada, A.; Nakashima, O.; Kojiro, M.; Matsuoka, K. Urodynamic evaluation of a suspension technique for rapid recovery of continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Int. J. Urol. 2006, 13, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rudy, D.C.; Woodside, J.R.; Crawford, E.D. Urodynamic evaluation of incontinence in patients undergoing modified Campbell radical retropubic prostatectomy: A prospective study. J. Urol. 1984, 132, 708–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, C.; Lee, J.; Hong, J.H.; Choo, M.S.; Kim, C.S.; Ahn, H. Urodynamic interpretation of changing bladder function and voiding pattern after radical prostatectomy: A long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2010, 106, 681–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, X.; Fu, B.; Zhang, C.; Liu, W.; Guo, J.; Chen, L.; Lei, E.; Zhang, X.; Wang, G. Transvesical robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: Initial experience and surgical outcomes. BJU Int. 2020, 126, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connolly, J.A.; Presti, J.C., Jr.; Carroll, P.R. Anterior bladder neck tube reconstruction at radical prostatectomy preserves functional urethral length a comparative urodynamic study. Br. J. Urol. 1995, 75, 766–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hata, J.; Onagi, A.; Tanji, R.; Honda-Takinami, R.; Matsuoka, K.; Hoshi, S.; Sato, Y.; Ogawa, S.; Kataoka, M.; Haga, N.; et al. Prevalence and predictors of postoperative detrusor underactivity after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A prospective observational study. Int. J. Urol. 2021, 28, 734–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, D.S.; Lee, S.J. Urodynamic evaluation of patients with localized prostate cancer before and 4 months after robotic radical prostatectomy. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 3632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schäfer, W.; Abrams, P.; Liao, L.; Mattiasson, A.; Pesce, F.; Spangberg, A.; Sterling, A.M.; Zinner, N.R.; van Kerrebroeck, P. Good urodynamic practices: Uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2002, 21, 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, K.J.; Del Mar, C.; Wright, G.; Dickinson, J.; Glasziou, P. Prevalence of incidental prostate cancer: A systematic review of autopsy studies. Int. J. Cancer 2015, 137, 1749–1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Irwin, D.E.; Milsom, I.; Hunskaar, S.; Reilly, K.; Kopp, Z.; Herschorn, S.; Coyne, K.; Kelleher, C.; Hampel, C.; Artibani, W.; et al. Population-based survey of urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and other lower urinary tract symptoms in five countries: Results of the EPIC study. Eur. Urol. 2006, 50, 1306–1314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Weight, C.J.; Kim, S.P.; Jacobson, D.J.; McGree, M.E.; Boorjian, S.A.; Thompson, R.H.; Leibovich, B.C.; Karnes, R.J.; St Sauver, J. The effect of benign lower urinary tract symptoms on subsequent prostate cancer testing and diagnosis. Eur. Urol. 2013, 63, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Masters, J.G.; Rice, M.L. Improvement in urinary symptoms after radical prostatectomy: A prospective evaluation of flow rates and symptom scores. BJU Int. 2003, 91, 795–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwartz, E.J.; Lepor, H. Radical retropubic prostatectomy reduces symptom scores and improves quality of life in men with moderate and severe lower urinary tract symptoms. J. Urol. 1999, 161, 1185–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhindi, A.; Bhindi, B.; Kulkarni, G.S.; Hamilton, R.J.; Toi, A.; van der Kwast, T.H.; Evans, A.; Zlotta, A.R.; Finelli, A.; Fleshner, N.E. Modern-day prostate cancer is not meaningfully associated with lower urinary tract symptoms: Analysis of a propensity score-matched cohort. Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2017, 11, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schäfer, W. Principles and clinical application of advanced urodynamic analysis of voiding function. Urol. Clin. N. Am. 1990, 17, 553–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, D.; van Mastrigt, R.; Bosch, R. Quantification of urethral resistance and bladder function during voiding, with special reference to the effects of prostate size reduction on urethral obstruction due to benign prostatic hyperplasia. Neurourol. Urodyn. 1989, 8, 29–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Mastrigt, R. Estimation of the maximum contraction velocity of the urinary bladder from pressure and flow throughout micturition. Urol. Res. 1990, 18, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Abrams, P. Bladder outlet obstruction index, bladder contractility index and bladder voiding efficiency: Three simple indices to define bladder voiding function. BJU Int. 1999, 84, 14–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, M.P.; DuBeau, C.E.; Resnick, N.M.; Cravalho, E.G.; Yalla, S.V. Continuous occlusion test to determine detrusor contractile performance. J. Urol. 1995, 154, 1834–1840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griffiths, D. Detrusor contractility--order out of chaos. Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol. Suppl. 2004, 21, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elliott, C.S.; Comiter, C.V. Maximum isometric detrusor pressure to measure bladder strength in men with postprostatectomy incontinence. Urology 2012, 80, 1111–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chao, R.; Mayo, M.E. Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: Detrusor or sphincter causes. J. Urol. 1995, 154, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Takenaka, A.; Soga, H.; Murakami, G.; Niikura, H.; Tatsumi, H.; Yaegashi, N.; Tanaka, K.; Fujisawa, M. Understanding anatomy of “hilus” of detrusor nerves to avoid bladder dysfunction after pelvic surgery: Demonstration using fetal and adult cadavers. Urology 2009, 73, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez Portillo, F.J.; Seif, C.; Braun, P.M.; Böhler, G.; Osmonov, D.K.; Leissner, J.; Hohenfellner, R.; Alken, P.; Juenemann, K.P. Risk of detrusor denervation in antireflux surgery demonstrated in a neurophysiological animal model. J. Urol. 2003, 170, 570–573, discussion 573–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollabaugh, R.S., Jr.; Dmochowski, R.R.; Kneib, T.G.; Steiner, M.S. Preservation of putative continence nerves during radical retropubic prostatectomy leads to more rapid return of urinary continence. Urology 1998, 51, 960–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spradling, K.; Khoyilar, C.; Abedi, G.; Okhunov, Z.; Wikenheiser, J.; Yoon, R.; Huang, J.; Youssef, R.F.; Ghoniem, G.; Landman, J. Redefining the Autonomic Nerve Distribution of the Bladder Using 3-Dimensional Image Reconstruction. J. Urol. 2015, 194, 1661–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tavukçu, H.H.; Aytac, O.; Atug, F. Nerve-sparing techniques and results in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Investig. Clin. Urol. 2016, 57, S172–S184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Taylor, J.A., 3rd; Kuchel, G.A. Detrusor underactivity: Clinical features and pathogenesis of an underdiagnosed geriatric condition. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2006, 54, 1920–1932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Drake, M.J.; Williams, J.; Bijos, D.A. Voiding dysfunction due to detrusor underactivity: An overview. Nat. Rev. Urol. 2014, 11, 454–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kupelian, V.; Wei, J.T.; O’Leary, M.P.; Kusek, J.W.; Litman, H.J.; Link, C.L.; McKinlay, J.B. Prevalence of lower urinary tract symptoms and effect on quality of life in a racially and ethnically diverse random sample: The Boston Area Community Health (BACH) Survey. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 2381–2387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chapple, C.R.; Wein, A.J.; Abrams, P.; Dmochowski, R.R.; Giuliano, F.; Kaplan, S.A.; McVary, K.T.; Roehrborn, C.G. Lower urinary tract symptoms revisited: A broader clinical perspective. Eur. Urol. 2008, 54, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chapple, C.; Abrams, P.; Société Internationale d’Urologie (SIU). Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS): An International Consultation on Male LUTS; SIU: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Creta, M.; Longo, N.; Mangiapia, F.; Arcaniolo, D.; Imbimbo, C.; Mirone, V.; Fusco, F. Detrusor overactivity and underactivity: Implication for lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostate hyperplasia diagnosis and treatment. Minerva Urol. Nephrol. 2021, 73, 59–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, H.H.; Hoe, V.; Crump, R.T.; Sengupta, S.; O’Connell, H.E.; Carlson, K.V.; Baverstock, R.J. Impact of radical prostatectomy on bladder function as demonstrated on urodynamics study-A systematic review. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2021, 40, 582–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ervandian, M.; Djurhuus, J.C.; Høyer, M.; Graugaard-Jensen, C.; Borre, M. Long-term urodynamic findings following radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy. Scand. J. Urol. 2018, 52, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboseif, S.R.; Konety, B.; Schmidt, R.A.; Goldfien, S.H.; Tanagho, E.A.; Narayan, P.A. Preoperative urodynamic evaluation: Does it predict the degree of urinary continence after radical retropubic prostatectomy? Urol. Int. 1994, 53, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, H.; Kim, J.H.; Shim, J.S.; Park, J.Y.; Kang, S.H.; Moon du, G.; Cheon, J.; Lee, J.G.; Kim, J.J.; Bae, J.H. Prediction of persistent storage symptoms after transurethral resection of the prostate in patients with benign prostatic enlargement. Urol. Int. 2014, 93, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Antunes, A.A.; Iscaife, A.; Reis, S.T.; Albertini, A.; Nunes, M.A.; Lucon, A.M.; Nahas, W.C.; Srougi, M. Can we predict which patients will experience resolution of detrusor overactivity after transurethral resection of the prostate? J. Urol. 2015, 193, 2028–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pastore, A.L.; Palleschi, G.; Illiano, E.; Zucchi, A.; Carbone, A.; Costantini, E. The role of detrusor overactivity in urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review. Minerva Urol. Nefrol. 2017, 69, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
---|---|
|
|
Year | Author | N | F-UP (Months) (Range) | Age (Years) Mean (Range) | Type of RP | NS | UI | PVR (mL) ∆ PVR | Bcap. (mL) ∆ Bcap. (mL) | BC (mL/cmH2O) or/and IBC ∆ BC; ∆ IBC | BOO ∆ BOO | DO ∆ DO | DU ∆ DU |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1984 | Rudy | 17 | Pre-op. | 64.2 | ORP | - | 19% (3/16) | - | 365 | - | - | 25% (4/16) | - |
14 | 6 | 87% (14/16) | - | 293 ↓ 72 † | - | - | 14.3% (2/14) ↓ 10.7% R 50% (2/4) | - | |||||
1986 | Hellstrom | 19 | Pre-op. | 63 (49–75) | ORP | - | 5.3% (1/19) | 30 ± 10.3 | 550 ± 34.3 | 37 ± 10.40 | - | 5.3% (1/19) | - |
19 | 6 | 32% (16/19) | 0 ± 4.68 ↓ 30 * | 450 ± 35.1 ↓ 100 † | 23 ± 3.16 ↓ 14 * | - | 5.3% (1/19) | - | |||||
1992 | Constantinou | 13 | 62 ±1.7 | ORP | 61.5% (8/13) | - | 150 ± 37 | 494 ± 42 | - | - | 76.9% (10/13) | - | |
13 | 22.9 § ± 1.1 | 62 ±1.7 | 38.5% (5/13) | 62 ± 43 ↓ 88 ± 32† | 469 ± 55 ↓ 25 | - | - | 61.5% (8/13) ↓ 15.4% N 8% (1/13) R 23% (3/10) | - | ||||
1995 | Connoly | 17 | Pre-op. | - | ORP | - | 0% | 54.3 | 441.9 a | - | - | - | - |
17 | Post-op. | 0% | 21.5 | 366.8 a ↓ 75.1 † | - | - | N 11.8% (2/17) | - | |||||
1999 | Kleinhouse | 44 | Pre-op. | 68 | ORP | - | 0% | 38.1 ± 90.6 | 375.4 ± 171.9 | - | - | 36.4% (16/44) | - |
44 | 7.8 § (3–10) | 15.9% (7/44) | 5.4 ± 10.6 ↓ 32.7 † | 427.8 ± 144.7 ↑ 52.4 * | - | - | 6.8% (3/44) ↓ 29.6% N 2.3% 1/44 R 87.5% (14/16) | - | |||||
2000 | John | 39 | Pre-op. | - | ORP | 20.5% (8/39) | 0% | - | 483 ± 168 | 49 ± 35 | - | - | - |
34 | 1.5 | 82.4% (28/34) | - | 376.8 a | 18.71 a | - | - | - | |||||
34 | 6 | 17.6% (6/34) | - | 430.7 a ↓ 53.9 | 21.18 a ↑ 2.5 | - | - | - | |||||
2004 | Giannantoni | 49 | Pre-op. | 65.3 ± 5 | ORP | 81.6% (40/49) | 14.3% (7/49) | - | - | 37.1 ± 14.9 20.4% (10/49) b | 57.1% (28/49) | 55.1% (27/49) | 42.8% (21/49) |
49 | 1 | 98% (48/49) | - | - | 26.9 ± 12.7 38.7% (19/49) b ↑ 18.3% N 18.4% (9/49) | 8.2% (4/49) ↓ 48.9% N 8.2% (4/49) | 67.3% (33/39) ↑ 2.2% N 12.2% (6/49) | 61.2% (30/49) ↑ 18.4% * N 28.6% (14/49) R 23.8% (5/21) | |||||
49 | 8 | 59.1% (29/49) | - | - | 29.2 ± 12.8 30.6% (15/49) b ↓ 8.1% N 10.2% (5/49) | 0% ↓ 8.2% | 65.3% (32/49) ↓ 2% N 10.2% (5/49) | 42.8% (21/49) ↓ 18.4% * N 10.2% (5/49) R 30% (9/30) | |||||
2004 | Natsume | 17 | Pre-op. | 69.4 (62–76) | ORP/LRP | - | - | 20 (0–103) 9.4 ± 14.8% | - | 37.3 ± 28.1 | 22.9 ± 34.3 c | 17.6% (3/17) | 35% (6/17) |
13 | 1 | - | 1.0 ± 2.5% ↓ 8.4% | - | 16.1 ± 12.7 ↓ 21.2 * | 5.0 ± 20.7 c ↓ 17.9 | N 15.4% (2/13) | 77% (10/13) ↑ 42% | |||||
12 | 3 | 47% (8/17) | 3.6 ± 8.9% ↑ 2.6% | - | 32.8 ± 21.6 ↓ 4.5 | 18.8 ± 22.8 c ↓ 4.1 N 15.4% (2/13) | - | 77% (10/13) N 38% (5/13) R 10% (1/10) | |||||
12 | 6 | 29.4% (5/17) | 4.0 ± 8.4% ↑ 0.4% | - | 40.4 ± 31.5 ↑ 3.1 | 15.6 ± 35.2 c ↓ 7.3 | - | - | |||||
2006 | Majores | 63 | Pre-op. | 61.9 ± 6.24 | ORP | 9.5% (6/63) | - | 15.1 ± 9.2 | 337 ± 81.9 | 27.1 ± 7.3 | 19% (12/63) | 23.8% (15/63) | - |
63 | 2 | 31.7% (20/63) | 3.6 ± 14.9 ↓ 11.5 * | 302 ± 52.2 ↓ 35 * | 24.2 ± 7.2 ↓ 2.9 † | 14.3% (9/63) ↓ 4.7% R 92% (11/12) | 30.2% (19/63) ↑ 6.4% N 15.9% (10/63) R 40% (6/15) | - | |||||
2006 | Noguchi | 45 | Pre-op. | 68 ± 4.8 | ORP | - | - | - | 381.3 a | - | - | - | - |
45 | 0.25 | 50.9% a | - | 240.9 a ↓ 140.4 | - | - | 15.3% a | - | |||||
45 | 1 | 33.2% a | - | 283.6 a ↓ 97.7 | - | - | 7.5% a ↓ 7.8% | - | |||||
45 | 3 | 19.9% a | - | 326.1 a ↓ 55.2 | - | - | 5.3% a ↓ 2.2% | - | |||||
2008 | Giannantoni | 54 | Pre-op. | 67 ± 5 | ORP | 81.5% (44/54) | 0% | - | N/A | 38.3 ± 12 37.1%(20/54) b | 59.3% (32/54) | 61.2% (33/54) | 38.8% (21/54) |
54 | 8 | 70% (40/54) * | - | - | 24.2 ± 9.9 ↓ 14.1 † 53.7% (29/54) b ↑ 20.6% * N 20.4% (11/54) R 10% (2/20) | 7.4% (4/54) ↓ 51.9% * N 7.4% (4/54) R 93.8% (30/32) | 70% (38/54) ↑ 8.8% † N 14.8% (8/54) R 9.1% (3/33) | 59.3% (32/54) ↑ 20.5% * N 29.6% (16/54) R 23.8% (5/21) | |||||
32 | 36 | 59.3% (19/32) | - | - | 27.9 ± 11.4 ↑ 3.7 28.1% (9/32) b ↓ 25.6% N 15.6% (5/32) R 25% (8/32) f | 0% (0/32) ↓ 7.4% | 56.3% (18/32) ↓ 13.7% N 15.6% (5/32) R 25% (8/32) f | 25% (8/32) ↓ 34.3% N 25% (8/32) R 15.6% (5/32) f | |||||
2009 | Matsukawa | 63 | Pre-op. | 66.5 (53–75) | LRP | 19% (12/63) | - | - | 253.6 (64.8) | 63.9 (31.8) | - | - | - |
63 | 4.3 § (3–9) | 17.5% (11/63) | - | 240.5 (60.9) | 32.8 (14.8) ↓ 31.1 * | - | 12.3% a | - | |||||
58 | Pre-op. | 67 (55–73) | ORP | 0% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | ||
58 | 6.1§(3–12) | 22.4% (13/58) | - | 206 a | 21.48 | - | 42.6% a | - | |||||
2010 | Matsukawa | 110 | Pre-op. | 66.1 a | LRP | - | - | - | 255 a | - | - | 25.5% (28/110) | - |
110 | 3.8 § (2–5) | - | - | 248.7 a | - | - | 32.7% (36/110) ↑ 7.2% N 20.9% (23/110) R 53.6%(15/28) | N 9.1% (10/110) * | |||||
2010 | Song | 72 | Pre-op. | 64 (49–77) | ORP | - | - | 14.5 ± 18.2% | 393 ± 91.5 | 2.8%(2/72) b | 20.8% (15/72) | 38% (27/72) | 4.2% (3/72) |
72 | 3 | 46% (33/72) | - | - | - | 5.6% (4/72) ↓ 15.2% | 45.8% ↑ 7.8% N 16.7% (12/72) | - | |||||
72 | 6 | 18% (13/72) | - | - | - | 2.8% (2/72) (↓ )2.8% | N 1.4% (1/72) | - | |||||
72 | 36 | - | - | 322.3 ± 103.9 | - | 2.8% (2/72) | 51.4% ↑ 5.6% N 5.6% (4/72) R 25.9% (7/27) | - | |||||
2012 | Mitsui | 43 | Pre-op. | 65 a | ORP/LRP | - | 0% | 60.2 ± 86.3 | 379 ± 148 | 0%b | 30.2% (13/43) | 11.6% (5/43) | 48.8% (21/43) |
43 | 12 | - | 22.7 ± 65.8 ↓ 37.5 * | 320 ± 112 | 0%b | 7% (3/43) ↓ 23.2% * | 9.3% (4/43) ↓ 2.3% N 9.3%(4/43) R 60% (3/5) | 44.2% (19/43) ↓ 4.6% † N 9.3% (4/43) R 28.6% (6/21) | |||||
2012 | Dubelman | 66 | Pre-op. | 64 (60–67) ‡ | ORP | 56.1% (37/66) | - | 473 | 12% (8/65) b | 49.2% (31/63) | 26% (17/66) | 75% (48/64) | |
66 | 6.5 | 28.9% (19/66) | 435 ↓ 38 † | 18% (12/65) b | 28.6% (18/63) ↓ 20.6% * | 21% (14/66) ↓ 5% | 70.3% (45/64) ↓ 4.7% † | ||||||
2013 | Mucciardi | 100 | Pre-op. | 65.6 ± 5.4 (50–77) | ORP | - | - | - | - | 16% (16/100) b | - | 12% (12/100) | 73% (73/100) |
88 | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | N 9.3% (4/43) | 68.2% (60/88) ↑ 56.2% N 54.5% (48/88) | 86.4%; (76/88) ↑ 13.4% N 31.8%(28/88) | ||||
2015 | Kadono | 63 | Pre-op. | 65.3 ± 4.8 | RALP | 58.7% (37/63) | 0% | 335.9 ± 92.3 | 28.3 ± 18.3 33% (21/63) b | 25.4% (16/63) | 28.6% (18/63) | 22% (14/63) | |
63 | Post-op. | 84.1% (53/63) | - | 251.4 ± 69.8 | 16.3 ± 10.8 ↓ 12 * 73% (46/63) b ↑ 40% * N 41.3% (26/63) R 4.8%(1/21) | 6.3% (4/63) ↓ 19.1 N 3.2% (2/63) R 88% (14/16) | 22.2% (14/63) ↓ 6.4 N 3.2% (2/63) R 33.3% (6/18) | 49.2% (31/63) ↑ 27.2% N 28.6% (18/63) R 7.1% (1/14) | |||||
63 | 12 | 11% (7/63) | - | 338.1 ± 91.5 | 27.1 ± 21.7 ↓ 10.8 * 41.2% (26/63) b ↓ 31.8% * N 3.2% (2/63) R 47.8% (22/46) | 3.2% (2/63) ↓ 3.1% N 15.9% (1/63) R 75% (3/4) | 22.2% (14/63) N 9.5% (6/63) R 33.3% (6/18) | 38.1% (24/63) ↓ 11.1% N 6.3% (4/63) R 35.5% (11/31) | |||||
2017 | Jiang | 46 | Pre-op. | 69.2 ± 7.9 | LRP/RALP | 34.8% (23/66) | - | 31.6 ± 60.8 | 304.0 ± 131.7 | 68.1 ± 73.6 | 25.2 ± 33.7 | 56.5% (26/46) | - |
46 | 3–6 | - | ↓ 9.8 ± 60.0 | - | ↑ 6.6 ± 108.3 | ↓ 23.9 ± 37.4 *,c | 52.2% (24/46) ↓ 4.3% N 15.2% (7/46) R 19.6% (9/46) | - | |||||
46 | 12 | - | ↓ 5.2 ± 29.5 | - | ↓ 37.5 ± 112.9 | ↓ 34.1 ± 40.0 *,c | 52.2% (24/46) | - | |||||
2017 | Kitta | 37 | Pre-op. | 65 (53–74) | ORP/LRP | 46% (17/37) | - | 48.6 ± 66.1 | 388 ± 139 | - | 24,2%(9/37) | 10.8% (4/37) | 114.6 ± 35.6 d; −0.4 ± 2.0 e |
37 | 12 | - | 10.1 ± 28.5 ↓ 38.5 * | 351 ± 111 | - | 8.1% (3/37) ↓ 16.1% | 8.1% (3/37) ↓ 2.7% | 115.4 ± 18.2 d; −2.2 ± 2.8 *,e | |||||
2018 | Huang | 48 | Pre-op. | 72.1 ± 5.68 | LRP | 37.5% (18/48) | - | 31.3 ± 63.8 | 296.0 ± 106.9 | 65.3 ± 75.9 | - | - | - |
31 | 1 | 93.8% (45/48) | 30.26 a | 302.1 a | 65.4 a ↑ 0.1 | - | - | - | |||||
28 | 3 | 66.7% (32/48) | - | - | - | - | - | - | |||||
2019 | Iguchi | 75 | Pre-op. | 67.6 a | RALP | 44% (33/75) | 0% | - | 226.9 a | - | - | 25.3% (19/75) | - |
75 | 3 | 33.3% (25/48) | - | 207.8 a | - | - | 33.3% (25/75) ↑ 8% N 17.3% (13/75) R 36.8% (7/19) | - | |||||
2020 | Zhou | 35 | Pre-op. | 63.4 ± 8.1 | RALP | 100% (35/35) | 0% | - | 385.3 (351.3–410.2) | - | - | - | - |
35 | 6 | 0% | - | 370.2 (330.1–395.4) | - | - | - | - | |||||
2021 | Hata | 64 | Pre-op. | 66.1 ± 4.7 | RALP | 25% (16/64) | 0% | - | - | - | - | - | 1.6% (1/64) |
64 | 1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | N 37% 24/64 | |||||
2021 | Lee | 61 | Pre-op. | 69.0 (61.0–73.0) | RALP | 82% (50/61) | - | 41.0 (17.0–70.0) | 306.0 (248.0 356.0) | 57.0 (44.0–80.0) | 36.0 (28.5–53.3)c | 9.8% (6/61) | |
61 | 4 | 18% (11/61) | 22.5 (10.0–56.0) ↓ 18.5 † | 287.5 (229.3–340.8) | 57.5 (41.0–80.0) ↑ 0.5 † | 28.5 (15.0–40.0) c ↓ 7.5 * | 5.0% (3/61) ↓ 4.8% * | - |
Author | F-UP (Months) (Range) | Criteria of DU | Coincidence | PROMs |
---|---|---|---|---|
Giannantoni | Pre-op. | DU + BOO 16.3% (8/49) DU + DO 14.3% (7/49) | - | |
1 | Schafer nomogram | DU + DO 36.7% (18/49); ↑ 22.3% * DU + ISD 57.1% (28/49) * | - | |
8 | DU + DO 22.4% (11/49) † ‡ DU + ISD 30.6% (15/49) * ‡ | - | ||
Natsume | Pre-op. | - | IPSS 10.8 ± 8.3 (0–28); QOLsc 3.3 ± 1.9 (0–6) | |
1 | Schafer nomogram | - | IPSS 13.3 ±10.4; ↑ 3,5 *; QOLsc 4.3± 1.5; ↑ 1 * | |
3 | - | IPSS 9.5 ± 9.5; QOLsc 2.9± 2.1 | ||
6 | - | IPSS 6.1 ± 6.4; QOLsc 1.8± 1.3* | ||
Giannantoni | Pre-op. | DO + DU 16.7% (9/54) | Strain voiders 20.4% 11/54 | |
8 | Schafer nomogram | DO + DU 38.9% (21/54); ↑ 22,2% * N 29.6% (16/54) DU + ISD 44.4%(24/54) * | - | |
36 | DO + DU 21.8% (7/32) N 12.5% (4/32) DU + ISD 34.4(11/32) * | - | ||
Matsukawa | Pre-op. | - | - | |
3.8 § (2–5) | ↑ Pabd and PdetQmax < 10 cmH2O | DO + de novo DU 0% | - | |
Mitsui | Pre-op. | - | IPSS 8.6 ± 7.0; QOLsc 3.4 ± 1.5 DU (post-op) non-DU: IPSS 10.4 ± 8.3 vs. 7.1 ± 5.5 † QOLsc 3.9 ± 1.5 vs. 2.9 ± 1.4 * | |
12 | WFmax < 10 (W/m2) | - | IPSS 7.9 ± 4.7†; QOLsc 2.5 ± 1.6; ↑ 0.9% * DU vs. non-DU: IPSS 8.6 ± 4.2 vs. 7.2 ± 5.2 † QOLsc 2.7 ± 1.4 vs. 2.2 ± 1.8 † | |
Dubelman | Pre-op. | - | - | |
6.5 | WFmax ≤ 10 (W/m2) | - | - | |
Mucciardi | Pre-op. | DU + DO 6% (6/100) DO + DU + IBC 6% (6/100) | - | |
12 | BCI < 75, WFmax < 7 μW/mm2 and MVDC < 7.5 mm/s. | DU + DO 59.1% (52/88); ↑ 53.1%; N 52.3% (46/8) DO + DU + IBC 25% (22/88); ↑ 19% N 18.2% (16/88) | - | |
Kadono | Pre-op. | ISD + DU 0%; DO + DU 0% DO + BOO 16% (10/63) | - | |
Post-op. | Schafer nomogram | ISD + DU 60%; (38/63); ↑ 60%; N 60% (38/63) DO + DU 6% (4/63); ↑ 6%; N 60% (4/63) | - | |
12 | ISD + DU 6% (4/63); ↓ 54%; N 0% DO + DU 5% (3/63); ↓ 1%; N 0% DO + BOO 2% (1/63); N 0% | - | ||
Kitta | Pre-op. | - | IPSS 8.8 ± 7.3; QOLsc score 3.5 ± 1.5 | |
12 | BCI; rV (Wmax), Line(W) and W80–W20 | - | IPSS 8.1 ± 4.8; ↓ 0.8† QOLsc score 2.5 ± 1.7; ↓ 1 * | |
Hata | Pre-op. | - | Non-DU vs. DU (post-op) IPSS 7.3 ± 5.7 vs. 11.7 ± 8.3 * QOL 2.6 ± 1.5 vs. 3.7 ± 1.5 * OABSS 2.8 ±2.5 vs. 3.6 ±2.0 † | |
1 | pdetQmax ≤ 25 cmH2O and Qmax ≤ 15 mL/s | - | Non-DU vs. DU (post-op) IPSS 11.3 ± 6.9 vs. 16.7 ± 9.0 * QOL 3.5 ± 1.9 vs. 4.4 ± 1.6 * OABSS 6.8 ± 3.9 vs. 9.2 ± 3.7 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oszczudłowski, M.; Bilski, K.; Kozikowski, M.; Dobruch, J. De Novo Detrusor Underactivity and Other Urodynamic Findings after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review. Medicina 2022, 58, 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030381
Oszczudłowski M, Bilski K, Kozikowski M, Dobruch J. De Novo Detrusor Underactivity and Other Urodynamic Findings after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review. Medicina. 2022; 58(3):381. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030381
Chicago/Turabian StyleOszczudłowski, Maciej, Konrad Bilski, Mieszko Kozikowski, and Jakub Dobruch. 2022. "De Novo Detrusor Underactivity and Other Urodynamic Findings after Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review" Medicina 58, no. 3: 381. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina58030381