Abstract
Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold standard for the treatment of localized PCa. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of different techniques of pelvic floor reconstruction on urinary continence. A comprehensive search was made for trials that evaluated the efficacy of pelvic floor reconstruction. Relevant databases included PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid, Web of Science databases and relevant trials from the references. Random-effects model was used to estimate risk ratios (RRs) statistics. Pooled results of patients treated with posterior reconstruction (PR) demonstrated complete urinary continence improved at 1–4, 28–42, 90, 180 and 360 days following catheter removal. Anterior suspension (AS) was associated with improvement only at 28–42 days. The anterior reconstruction (AR) + PR was associated with urinary continence at 1–4, 90 and 180 days. AS + PR was not associated with any benefit. And PR improved social urinary continence at 7–14 and 28–42 days. No benefit was associated with AS. AR + PR had better outcomes at 90 and 180 days. AS + PR was significant improved at 28–42 and 90 days. Patients who underwent RP and PR had the least urinary incontinence. No significant benefit was observed after AS. AR + PR and AS + PR had little benefit in the post-operative period.
Highlights
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer, with an incidence of approximately 21% in the general population
Nine additional trials were excluded because there was no comparison group, outcome data was incomplete, it was a review article, or the article was not in English
A total of 4697 patients were included in this meta-analysis. 19 trials[7, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32] evaluated the efficacy of Posterior reconstruction (PR), 7 trials[12, 33,34,35,36,37,38] evaluated the efficacy of anterior suspension (AS), 4 trials[9,10,11, 14] evaluated the efficacy of PR + Anterior reconstruction (AR), and 2 trials[39, 40] evaluated the efficacy of PR + AS
Summary
Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer, with an incidence of approximately 21% in the general population. Posterior reconstruction (PR) of the rhabdosphincter was initially described by Walsh[5] and later popularized by Rocoo et al.[6, 7]. It is still a popular technique for controlling urinary incontinence. Rocco et al.[13] reported a meta-analysis of posterior reconstruction technique and several trials have been conducted to evaluate the time to urinary continence after LRP and RARP. We conducted a meta-analysis evaluating the continence rate at different time intervals after different surgical techniques
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
