Comparison of the postoperative recovery of urinary continence after 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

Abstract

Objective To Compare the postoperative recovery of continence after 3D and 2D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Methods A retrospective analysis of 72 patients underwent radical prostatectomy in our department from January 2013 to December 2015 , including 38 cases underwent 3D laparoscopic radical prostatectomy, 3D group's mean age was (64.2±6.0)years, mean of preoperative PSA was (14.5±7.6)ng/ml, Gleason score (13 cases≤6, 17 cases=7, 8 cases ≥8), the mean prostate volume (41.4±9.1) ml, the classification of clinical stage in 3D group included 2 cases in cT1, 26 cases in cT2, 9 cases in cT3a, 1 cases in cT3b, mean body mass index was (22.8±2.2) kg/m2, mean of MUL(membranous urethral length) was (15.6±2.6) mm; 34 cases in the 2D group, 3D group's mean age was (61.9±6.6)years, mean of preoperative PSA was (16.7±6.8) ng/ml, Gleason score (10 cases≤6, 18 cases=7, 6 cases ≥8), the mean prostate volume (42.1±10.6) ml, the classification of clinical stage in 3D group included 1 cases in cT1, 28 cases in cT2, 5 cases in cT3a, mean body mass index was (21.7±1.9) kg/m2, mean of MUL(membranous urethral length) was (15.5±2.5) mm. All patients got a good function of micturition and urinary continence before the surgery. We compared surgical time, bladder neck-urethral anastomosis time and blood loss in two groups.Membranous urethral length(MUL) were measured on preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Postoperative continence rate was analyzed at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, 24 weeks and 36 weeks after the remove of the catheter. Results All the operations were completed successfully by the same surgeon and none was transferred to open surgery. The age, PSA value, Gleason score, prostate volume, TNM stage, BMI (body mass index) and other relevant aspects of the clinical data showed no significant difference (P>0.05). The time of bladder neck - urethral anastomosis is less than the 2D group [(12.9±1.7) min and (15.7±2.6) min, P=0.021], MUL loss in the 3D laparoscopic surgery group is less than that of 2D laparoscopic [(0.5±0.1) ml vs. (0.6±0.2) ml, P=0.044], the two groups in operative time [(162.7±17.1) min vs. (175.7±15.7) min, P=0.802], intraoperative blood loss[(191.1±31.6) ml vs. (211.8±43.2) ml, P=0.021], intraoperative blood transfusion rate[5.2% (2/38) vs. 8.8% (3/34), P=0.662], postoperative incidence of urine leakage [7.9% (3/38) vs. 14.7% (5/34), P=0.463], postoperative the MUL [(15.1±2.6) mm vs. (15.0±2.6) mm, P=0.767), there was no statistically significant differen. All patients were followed up for urinary function at least 36 months. The continence rate between two groups at 8 weeks (60.5% vs. 35.3%), 12 weeks (73.7% vs. 47.1%) got significantly difference. Conclusions Compared with 2D laparoscopic, 3D laparoscopic may help early postoperative recovery of urinary continence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Key words: 3D laparoscopy; Radical prostatectomy; Urinary continence; Recovery