Influence of modified posterior reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter on early recovery of continence and anastomotic leakage rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Posterior reconstruction (PR) of the rhabdosphincter has been previously described during retropubic radical prostatectomy, and shorter times to return of urinary continence were reported using this technical modification. This technique has also been applied during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP); however, contradictory results have been reported.

OBJECTIVE: We describe here a modified technique for PR of the rhabdosphincter during RARP and report its impact on early recovery of urinary continence and on cystographic leakage rates.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 803 consecutive patients who underwent RARP by a single surgeon over a 12-mo period: 330 without performing PR and 473 with PR.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE: The reconstruction was performed using two 6-in 3-0 Poliglecaprone sutures tied together. The free edge of the remaining Denonvillier's fascia was identified after prostatectomy and approximated to the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter and the posterior median raphe using one arm of the continuous suture. The second layer of the reconstruction was then performed with the other arm of the suture, approximating the posterior lip of the bladder neck and vesicoprostatic muscle to the posterior urethral edge.

MEASUREMENTS: Continence rates were assessed with a self-administrated, validated questionnaire (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite) at 1, 4, 12, and 24 wk after catheter removal. Continence was defined as the use of "no absorbent pads." Cystogram was performed in all patients on postoperative day 4 or 5 before catheter removal.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to patient age, body mass index, prostate-specific antigen levels, prostate weight, American Urological Association symptom score, estimated blood loss, operative time, number of nerve-sparing procedures, and days with catheter. In the PR group, the continence rates at 1, 4, 12, and 24 wk postoperatively were 28.7%, 51.6%, 91.1%, and 97%, respectively; in the non-PR group, the continence rates were 22.7%, 42.7%, 91.8%, and 96.3%, respectively. The modified PR technique resulted in significantly higher continence rates at 1 and 4 wk after catheter removal (p = 0.048 and 0.016, respectively), although the continence rates at 12 and 24 wk were not significantly affected (p = 0.908 and p = 0.741, respectively). The median interval to recovery of continence was also statistically significantly shorter in the PR group (median: 4 wk; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.39-4.61) when compared to the non-PR group (median: 6 wk; 95% CI: 5.18-6.82; log-rank test, p=0.037). Finally, the incidence of cystographic leaks was lower in the PR group (0.4% vs 2.1%; p=0.036). Although the patients' baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, the patients were not preoperatively randomized and unknown confounding factors may have influenced the results.

CONCLUSIONS: Our modified PR combines the benefits of early recovery of continence reported with the original PR technique with a reinforced watertight closure of the posterior anastomotic wall. Shorter interval to recovery of continence and lower incidence of cystographic leaks were demonstrated with our PR technique when compared to RARP with no reconstruction.