Evaluation of quality of life and post-operative complications of our radical prostatectomy series for 5 years

Öz

Purpose: The aim of this study is to evaluate health status, erectile function, continence status and mental status of the patients. We also analyze demographic features and post-operative complications. We want to detect changings in surgical techniques and complication rates, so we will obtain accurate knowledges for the patients who will undergo radical prostatectomy in the future. Materials and methods: 67 patient included to this study with permission of Pamukkale University ethic commission. We phoned patients and ask to come hospital to filling out forms and to ask few questiones. We suggest them to fill out generel health quality, IIEF, ICIQ and MMT forms. We also asked them how they decide to undergo operation, their satisfaction with the treatment and whether they would accept the same treatment again. We record demographic and follow-up informations of patient from database of our hospital. Results: We found that the number of the patients who undergone radical prostatectomy increased over the years and the lenght of stay in hospital and the risk of additional operation for urethral stricture decreased. Conclusion: Data from our study were compatible with the existing literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radical prostatectomy
• quality of life
• complications

Beş yıllık radikal prostatektomi serimizin postoperatif komplikasyon ve yaşam kalitelerinin değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı kliniğimizde son 5 yılda yapılan radikal prostatektomi ameliyatlarının hastaların genel sağlık durumları, erektil fonksiyonları, kontinans durumları ve mental durumlarını değerlendirmek ayrıca hastaların demografik özellikleri ile post-operastif takiplerini retrospektif olarak değerlendirmektir. Bu değerlendirmeler sonucunda kliniğimizde yapılan radikal prostatektomi ameliyatlarının yıllar içinde teknik ve sonuçlar açısından değişimi saptanacak ayrıca önümüzdeki yıllarda bu ameliyatın önerileceği hasta grubuna sunulabilecek somut verilere ulaşılabilecektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Çalışmaya Pamukkale Üniversitesi Tıbbi Etik kuruldan alınan izinle toplam 67 hasta dahil edildi. Hastalar telefonla aranarak hastaneye çağrıldı. Hastalara genel sağlık durumu, 11EF, ICIQ ve MMT sorgu formları uygulandı. Ayrıca hastalara operasyona karar aşamasındaki tutumları, tedavi memnuniyetleri ve aynı tedaviyi tekrar kabul edip etmeyecekleri soruldu. Ardından hastaların operasyon ve operasyon sonrası takip bilgileri hastane hasta takip sisteminden kaydedildi. Bulgular: Çalışma kliniğimizin son 2 yılda radikal prostatektomi sayısında artış olduğu ayrıca vaka sayısında artışla birlikte hastaların hastanede kalış sürelerinin ve darlık nedeniyle ek girişim riskinin azaldığı saptanmıştır. Sonuç: Çalışmamızdan elde edilen veriler mevcut literatür ile uyumlu saptanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Radikal prostatektomi
• yaşam kalitesi
• komplikasyon

Kaynakça

1. 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660
2. 2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
3. 3. Catalona WJ, Richie JP, Ahmann FR, et al. Comparison of digital rectal examination and serum prostate specific antigen in the early detection of prostate cancer: results of a multicenter clinical trial of 6,630 men. J Urol 1994;151:1283-1290.
4. 4. Seer cancer statistics review. Available at: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html. Accessed September 01, 2022
5. 5. Carrlson S, Nilsson E, Schumacher M, et al. Surgery-related complications in 1253 robot-assisted and 485 open retropubic radical prostatectomies at the Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden. Urology 2010;75:1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.09.075
6. 6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.01.036
7. 7. Rabbani F, Yunis LH, Pinochet R, et al. Comprehensive standardized report of complications of retropubic and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2010;57:371-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.11.034
8. 8. Resnick MJ, Koyama T, Fan KH, et al. Long-term functional outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2013;368:436-445. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1209978

9. 9. Parekh A, Chen MH, Hoffman KE, et al. Reduced penile size and treatment regret in men with recurrent prostate cancer after surgery, radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation, or radiotherapy alone. Urology 2013;81:130-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.08.068
10. 10. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1425-1437. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1606221
11. 11. Axelson AB, Holmberg L, Garmo H, et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in prostate cancer - 29-year follow-up. N Engl J Med 2018;379:2319-2329. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1807801
12. 12. Davison BJ, So AI, Goldenberg SL. Quality of life, sexual function and decisional regret at 1 year after surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;100:780-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07043.x
13. 13. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress Amsterdam 2022. ISBN 978-94-92671-16-5.
14. 14. Results search of terms=prostate+cancer+quality+of+life. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=prostate+cancer+quality+of+life. Accessed September 04, 2022
15. 15. Bill Axelson A, Holmberg L, Ruutu M, et al. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1977-1984. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa043739
16. 16. Potosky AL, Warren JL. Radical prostatectomy: does higher volume lead to better quality? J Natl Cancer Inst 1999;91:1906-1907 https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.22.1906
17. 17. Lepor H, Nieder AM, Ferrandino MN. Intraoperative and postoperative complications of radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1,000 cases. J Urol 2001;166:1729-1733.
18. 18. Augustin H, Hammerer P, Graefen M, et al. Intraoperative and perioperative morbidity of contemporary radical retropubic prostatectomy in a consecutive series of 1243 patients: results of a single center between 1999 and 2002. Eur Urol 2003;43:113-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0302-2838(02)00495-5
19. 19. Maffezzini M, Seveso M, Taverna G, et al. Evaluation of complications and lesults in a contemporary series of 300 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies with the anatomic approach at a single institution. Urology 2003;61:982-986. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02517-7
20. 20. Herr HW, Sullivan M. Quality of life of asymptomatic men with non-metastatic prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy, J Urol 2000;163:1743-1746.
21. 21. Johansson E, Bill Axelson A, Holmberg L, et al. Scandinavian prostate cancer group study no 4. Time, symptom burden, androgen deprivation, and self-assessed quality of life after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Randomized Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4 (SPCG-4) clinical trial. Eur Urol 2009;55:422-432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.08.054
22. 22. Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Lu Yao G, Wasson J, Roman A, Wennberg J. Effect of radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer on patient quality of life: results from a Medicare survey. Urology 1995;45:1007-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80122-8
23. 23. Gralnek D, Wessells H, Cui H, Dalkin BL. Differences in sexual function and quality of life after nerve sparing and nonnerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;16:1166-1169.
24. 24. Kao TC, Cruess DF, Garner D, et al. Multicenter patient self-reporting questionnaire on impotence, incontinence and stricture after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2000;163:858-864
25. 25. Mazur DJ, Merz JF. Older patients' willingness to trade off urologic adverse outcomes for a better chance at five-year survival in the clinical setting of prostate cancer. J Am Geriatr Soc 1995;43:979-984 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1995.tb05561.x
26. 26. Miles BJ, Giesler B. Kattan Recall and attitudes in patients with prostate cancer. Urology 1999;53:169-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(98)00456-7
27. 27. Davison BJ, So AI, Goldenberg SL. Quality of life, sexual function and decisional regret at 1 year after surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007;100:780-785. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07043.x 28. Ayhan H, İyigün E, Göktaş S, et al. Radikal prostatektomi geçiren erkeklerin yaşadığı güçlükler. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi 2008;50:180-189.
28. 29. Başer A, Alkış O, Özlülerden Y, Zümrütbaş AE. Radikal sistektomide ileal konduit üriner diversiyon ile kontinan üriner diversiyon uygulanan hastalarda yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. Pam Tıp Derg 2019;12:535-543. https://dx.doi.org/10.31362/patd.481488
29. 30. Messaoudi R, Menard J, Ripert T, Parquet H, Staerman F. Erectile dysfunction and sexual health after radical prostatectomy: impact of sexual motivation. Int J Impot Res 2011;23:81-86. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2011.8
30. 31. Gerullis H, Quast S, Eimer C, Bagner JW, Otto T. Sphincter lesions after radical prostatectomy-evaluation and classification J Endourol 2011;25:1074-1079 https://doi.org/10.1089/end.2010.0581
31. 32. Chao R, Mayo ME. Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: detrusor or sphincter causes. J Urol 1995;154:16-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)67212-4
32. 33. Elliott SP, Meng MV, Elkin EP, et al. CaPSURE Investigators. Incidence of urethral stricture after primary treatment for prostate cancer: data From CaPSURE. J Urol 2007;178:529-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.126
33. 34. Shin Ichi H, Atsushi T, Ryuichi K, et al. Early and late complications ofradical retropubic prostatectomy: experience in a single institution. JJCO 2004;34:274-279. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyh042
34. 35. Thiel DD, lgel TC, Brisson TE, et al. Outcomes with an altemative anastomotictechnique after radical retropubic prostatectomy: 10-year experience. Urology 2006;68:132-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.01.024
35. 36. Altinova S, Serefoglu EC, Ozdemir AF, Atmaca AF, Akbulut Z, Balbay MD. Factors affecting urethral stricture development after radical retropubic prostatectomy. 2009;41:881-884. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-008-9519-4
36. 37. Wilson A, Marlow NE, Maddem Gel M, et al. Radical prostatectomy: a systematic review of the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on patient outcome. ANZ J Surg 2010;80:24-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2009.05172.x