Risk of Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy According to Procedural Types: Retrospective Cohort Study Using National Health Insurance Data

Ki Min Kim; Jeong Woo Lee; Gi Hwan Bae; Min Gi Chun; Serin Lee; Eun Ji Lee; Jaehun Jung; Jae Heon Kim

doi:10.5534/wjmh.240013

Risk of Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy According to Procedural Types: Retrospective Cohort Study Using National Health Insurance Data

World J Mens Health. 2024 Dec 6. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.240013. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Ki Min Kim¹, Jeong Woo Lee², Gi Hwan Bae³, Min Gi Chun^{1

4}, Serin Lee^{1

5}, Eun Ji Lee⁶, Jaehun Jung⁷, Jae Heon Kim⁸

Affiliations

¹ Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
² Department of Urology, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, Kyung Hee University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
³ Artificial Intelligence and Big-Data Convergence Center, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
⁴ Cranbrook Kingswood Upper School, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA.
⁵ Department of Biochemistry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
⁶ Department of Radiology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
⁷ Department of Preventive Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. eastside1st@gmail.com.
⁸ Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. piacekjh@hanmail.net.

PMID: 39743221
DOI: 10.5534/wjmh.240013

Abstract

Purpose: Although surgical procedures including robotic surgery in radical prostatectomy have evolved, urinary incontinence after surgery are still not resolved. This study was to evaluate the risk of clinically significant incontinence after radical prostatectomy according to various procedural types.

Materials and methods: The retrospective cohort study included prostate cancer (n=14,484) in South Korea between 2002 and 2017 as shown in the National Health Insurance Data. Clinically significant incontinence was defined as postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) requiring anti-incontinence surgery or received specific medication within months after surgery. The prevalence and relative risks of PPI were evaluated according to different procedural types after propensity score matching (PSM). The risks of PPI were compared among those difference procedural types including robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) using the hazard ratio (HR).

Results: Among 25,903 cohort participants including RALP (n=18,937), ORP (n=4,979), and LRP (n=1,987), overall prevalence of PPI was 2.06% (n=536). According to procedural types, prevalence of PPI in LRP, RARP, and ORP were 3.67%, 1.81%, and 2.43%, respectively. Risk of PPI after PSM and after adjustment of age, Charlson comorbidity index, and hospital volume was 0.456 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.30-0.69) between LRP and RARP, 0.67 (95% CI 0.46-0.98) between LRP and ORP, and 1.404 (1.06-1.86) between RARP and ORP. Adjusted HR after PSM was 0.495 (95% CI 0.33-0.74) between LRP and RARP, 0.674 (95% CI 0.46-0.98) between LRP and ORP, 1.242 (95% CI 0.94-1.64) between RARP and ORP.

Conclusions: The prevalence of PPI which needed anti-incontinence surgery was not low among who received radical prostatectomy. Those patients who underwent LRP had higher risk for PPI than those who underwent ORP. However, further research is required to fully determine whether RARP can help to prevent PPI.

Keywords: Minimally invasive surgical procedures; Neoplasms; Prostate; Prostatectomy; Surgical procedures, operative; Urinary incontinence.

Grants and funding

2023-0080/SCH/Soonchunhyang University/Korea