BMC Urology (Jul 2019)

Comparison of various continence definitions in a large group of patients undergoing radical prostatectomy: a multicentre, prospective study

  • Sigrun Holze,
  • Meinhard Mende,
  • Karl V. Healy,
  • Norbert Koehler,
  • Lutz Gansera,
  • Michael C. Truss,
  • Udo Rebmann,
  • Stephan Degener,
  • Jens-Uwe Stolzenburg

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-019-0500-6
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Due to the usage of various measurement methods and definitions, comparing continence rates after radical prostatectomy is a challenging task. This study compares continence rates based on different methods and aims to identify the definition for continence which agrees best with the patients’ subjective assessment of continence. Additionally, continence was controlled for multiple influencing factors. Methods This prospective multicentre study was carried out in seven hospitals throughout Germany. Before and at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery self-reporting questionnaires were completed and returned by 329 (84.4%) of 390 eligible patients. The questionnaires were independently evaluated and analysed by a third party. Association of continence with demographic, operative, and tumour factors in an ongoing comprehensive prostate cancer database was evaluated. Results The continence rate drops substantially for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy but increases again with time. Concrete numbers vary considerably depending on definition – 44% at 3 months and 68% at 12 months after surgery (0 pads) vs. 71 and 90% (0–1 pads). Significant confounding variables regarding continence rate are nerve-sparing procedure, categorized Gleason score, rehabilitative cure treatment, and pelvic floor training. The definition of 0 pads for continence coincides greater than 0–1 pads with the patients’ self-assessment of being continent. Conclusion A standardized definition for continence would be desirable, as it is one of the most important preconditions to guarantee sound comparison of continence rates. Since there are enough other factors that make comparison difficult, we suggest using the definition of “0 pads”. It is easily measured objectively, leaves no room for interpretation, and agrees best with the patients’ self-assessment.