Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2020; 51(05): 463-468
DOI: 10.1055/a-1185-8330
Übersicht

Prä-, intra- und postoperative Einflussfaktoren funktioneller Einschränkungen nach radikaler Prostatektomie

Pre-, intra- and postoperative predictors of functional outcome following radical prostatectomy
Philipp Krausewitz
Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Bonn
,
Manuel Ritter
Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Bonn
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Der Erhalt von Kontinenz und Erektionsfähigkeit ist für die Lebensqualität nach radikaler Prostatektomie von entscheidender Bedeutung. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über präoperative Risikostratifizierung sowie intra- und postoperative Faktoren, die die funktionellen Ergebnisse nach radikaler Prostatektomie maßgeblich beeinflussen.

Alter, präoperativ bestehende Sexualfunktion, Prostatavolumen, Body Mass Index und Komorbiditäten gelten laut Studienlage als valide Prädiktoren der funktionellen Ergebnisse nach einer Prostatektomie. Während die Operationsmethode selbst keinen Einfluss zu haben scheint, wirken sich das intraoperative Vorgehen in Form nervenschonender Techniken und Umfang der Beckenbodenrekonstruktion sowie die Erfahrung des Operateurs signifikant auf die postoperative Potenz und Kontinenz aus. Im Rahmen der Rehabilitationsmaßnahmen werden dem Beckenbodentraining und der PDE-5-Inhibitor-Therapie Schlüsselrollen zur Wiedererlangung der erektilen Funktion und Harnkontrolle zugeschrieben.

Zusammenfassend können zahlreiche Therapiemodifikationen dazu beitragen, funktionelle Ergebnisse und damit auch die Lebensqualität der Patienten nach einer Prostatektomie zu verbessern. Eine sorgfältige präoperative Patientenselektion durch den Urologen sowie der Eingang besserer anatomischer Kenntnisse der nervalen und faszialen periprostatischen Strukturen in das operative Vorgehen sind dabei entscheidende Einflussfaktoren.

Abstract

Maintaining continence and erectile function is crucial for quality of life after radical prostatectomy. This review provides an overview of available evidence concerning preoperative risk stratification as well as intra- and postoperative factors determining functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy.

Current data indicate that patient factors including age, baseline erectile function, prostate size, body-mass index and comorbidity status are valid predictors of functional outcome after prostatectomy. While surgical methods do not seem to have any influence, intraoperative procedures like nerve-sparing techniques, the extent of pelvic floor reconstruction as well as surgeons’ experience have a significant impact on postoperative potency and continence. Rehabilitation consisting of pelvic floor training and use of PDE-5 inhibitors also contributes significantly to the recovery of erectile function and urinary continence.

In summary, numerous adjustments of treatment can help to improve functional results and thus the quality of life after prostatectomy. A careful preoperative selection of suitable patients by urologists and integration of knowledge of periprostatic nerve and fascial structures into the surgical procedure are decisive factors.

Schlüsselwörter

Postprostatektomieinkontinenz - Prostatektomie - Erektile Dysfunktion

Keywords

functional outcome - prostatectomy - incontinence - erectile function


Publication History

Article published online:
25 June 2020

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • Literaturverzeichnis

  • 1 Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J. et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer suvivors. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 1250-1261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Patel VR, Abdul-Muhsin HM, Schatloff O. et al. Critical review of 'pentafecta' outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy in high-volume centres. BJU Int 2011; 108: 1007-1017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W. et al. Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 1037-1063
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Haese A, Knipper S, Isbarn H. et al. A comparative study of robot-assisted and open radical prostatectomy in 10 790 men treated by highly trained surgeons for both procedures. BJU Int 2019; 123: 1031-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Guillonneau B, Cathelineau X, Doublet JD. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 550 procedures. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002; 43: 123-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Shikanov SA, Zorn KC, Zagaja GP. et al. Trifecta outcomes after robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Urology 2009; 74: 619-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Khoder WY, Waidelich R, Buchner A. et al. Prospective comparison of one year follow-up outcomes for the open complete intrafascial retropubic versus interfascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Springerplus 2014; 3: 335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Briganti A, Gallina A, Suardi N. et al. Predicting Erectile Function Recovery after Bilateral Nerve Sparing Radical Prostatectomy: A Proposal of a Novel Preoperative Risk Stratification. The Journal of Sexual Medicine 2010; 7: 2521-2531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hoffman RM, Lo M, Clark JA. et al. Treatment Decision Regret Among Long-Term Survivors of Localized Prostate Cancer: Results From the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Clin Oncol 2017; 10: 2306-2314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Goonewardene SS, Gillatt D, Persad R. et al. A systematic review of PFE pre-prostatectomy. J Robot Surg 2018; 12: 397-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Boczko J, Erturk E, Golijanin D. et al. Impact of prostate size in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2007; 21: 184-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Jo JK, Hong SK, Byun SS. et al. Urinary Continence after Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy: The Impact of Intravesical Prostatic Protrusion. Yonsei Med J 2016; 57: 1145-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Mungovan SF, Sandhu JS, Akin O. et al. Preoperative Membranous Urethral Length Measurement and Continence Recovery Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2017; 71: 368-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Yamada Y, Fujimura T, Fukuhara H. et al. Overactive bladder is a negative predictor of achieving continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 2017; 24: 749-56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Esposito K, Giugliano F, Ciotola M. et al. Obesity and sexual dysfunction, male and female. Int J Impot Res 2008; 20: 358-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Montgomery JS, Gayed BA, Hollenbeck BK. et al. Obesity adversely affects health related quality of life before and after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2006; 176: 257-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Edwards R. et al. Impact of obesity on clinical outcomes in robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2005; 65: 740-74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wolin KY, Luly J, Sutcliffe S. et al. Risk of Urinary Incontinence Following Prostatectomy: The Role of Physical Activity and Obesity. The Journal of Urology 2010; 183: 629-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Colombo R, Naspro R, Salonia A. et al. Radical prostatectomy after previous prostate surgery: clinical and functional outcomes. J Urol 2006; 176: 2459-2463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pompe RS, Leyh-Bannurah SR, Preisser F. et al. Radical prostatectomy after previous TUR-P: Oncological, surgical, and functional outcomes. Urol Oncol 2018; 36: 527.e21-527.e28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pfister D, Pullankavumkal J, Haidl F. et al. Functional outcome and quality of life in patients undergoing salvage radical prostatectomy (SRPE). Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018; 36: 212-212
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rosenbaum CM, Mandel P, Tennstedt P. et al. Effect of repeat prostate biopsies on functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy. Urol Oncol 2018; 36: 91.e17-91.e22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK. et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. Lancet 2016; 10: 1057-1066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tooher R, Swindle P, Woo H. et al. Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer: a systematic review of comparative studies. J Urol 2006; 175: 2011-2017
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Fossati N, Di Trapani E, Gandaglia G. et al. Assessing the Impact of Surgeon Experience on Urinary Continence Recovery After Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: Results of Four High-Volume Surgeons. J Endourol 2017; 31: 872-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Good DW, Stewart GD, Stolzenburg JU. et al. Analysis of the pentafecta learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 2014; 32: 1225-1233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft. Jahresbericht Prostata 2019 (Auditjahr 2018 / Kennzahlenjahr 2017). Berlin: 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 1982; 128: 492-497
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Tewari A, Rao S, Martinez-Salamanca JI. et al. Cancer control and the preservation of neurovascular tissue: how to meet competing goals during robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2008; 101: 1013-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Galfano A, Di Trapani D, Sozzi F. et al. Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with ≥ 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 974-980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Phukan C, Mclean A, Nambiar A. et al. Retzius sparing robotic assisted radical prostatectomy vs. conventional robotic assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2019; [Epub ahead of print] DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02798-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Do M. et al. Intrafascial nerve-sparing endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 931-940
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ahlering TE, Eichel L, Skarecky D. et al. Evaluation of long-term thermal injury using cautery during nerve sparing robotic prostatectomy. Urology 2008; 72: 1371-1374
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Finley DS, Osann K, Chang A. et al. Hypothermic robotic radical prostatectomy: impact on continence. J Endourol 2009; 23: 1443-1450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mandhani A, Dorsey Jr. PJ, Ramanathan RJ. et al. Real time monitoring of temperature changes in neurovascular bundles during robotic radical prostatectomy: thermal map for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Endourol 2008; 22: 2313-2317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Eggener SE. et al. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol 2004; 172: 2227-2231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C. et al. Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 333-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A. et al. Nerve Sparing Open Radical Retropubic Prostatectomy - Does It Have an Impact on Urinary Continence?. J Urol 2006; 176: 189-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Reeves F, Preece P, Kapoor J. et al. Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 692-704
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Michl U, Tennstedt P, Feldmeier L. et al. Nerve-sparing Surgery Technique, Not the Preservation of the Neurovascular Bundles, Leads to Improved Long-term Continence Rates After Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2016; 69: 584-589
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Nyarangi-Dix JN, Radtke JP, Hadaschik B. et al. Impact of complete bladder neck preservation on urinary continence, quality of life and surgical margins after radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled, single blind trial. J Urol 2013; 189: 891-898
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tewari A, Jhaveri J, Rao S. et al. Total reconstruction of the vesico-urethral junction. BJU Int 2008; 101: 871-877
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Lee JK, Assel M, Thong AE. et al. Unexpected long-term improvements in urinary and erectile function in a large cohort of men with self-reported outcomes following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2015; 68: 899-905
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 MacDonald R, Fink HA, Huckabay CB. et al. Pelvic floor muscle training to improve urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of effectiveness. BJU Int 2007; 100: 76-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lovvik A, Müller S, Patel HR. Pharmacological Treatment of Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: What is the Evidence?. Drugs Aging 2016; 33: 535-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Anderson CA, Omar MI, Campbell SE. et al. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 20: CD001843
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Nam RK, Hersch S, Loblaw DA. et al. Population based study of long-term rates of surgery for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol 2012; 188: 502-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Burkhard FC, Bosch JL, Cruz F. et al. EAU – ESTRO – ESUR – SIOG Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence in Adults. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Barcelona 2019. 978-94-92671-04-2. Publisher: EAU Guidelines Office. Place published: Arnhem, The Netherlands.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Montorsi F, Brock G, Lee J. et al. Effect of Nightly Versus On-Demand Vardenafil on Recovery of Erectile Function in Men Following Bilateral Nerve-Sparing Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 924-931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Osmonov DK, Jünemann KP, Bannowsky A. The „Kiel Concept“ of Long-Term Administration of Daily Low-Dose Sildenafil Initiated in the Immediate Post-Prostatectomy Period: Evaluation and Comparison With the International Literature on Penile Rehabilitation. Sex Med Rev 2017; 5: 387-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Philippou YA, Jung JH, Steggall MJ. et al. Penile rehabilitation for postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 23: CD012414
    PubMedGoogle Scholar