loading page

The effect of vesicourethral anostomosis technique on functional results in retropubic radical prostatectomy
  • Fuat Kizilay,
  • Serdar Kalemci,
  • Adnan Simsir
Fuat Kizilay
Author Profile
Serdar Kalemci
Ege University Faculty of Medicine
Author Profile
Adnan Simsir
Ege University Faculty of Medicine
Author Profile

Abstract

Aim We aimed to compare the functional results of two different vesicourethral anostomosis (VUA) techniques used in retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP). Methods A total of 476 patients including the first group with 4 focal VUA at 12-, 3-, 6-, and 9-o’clock positions (n = 288) and the second group with 6 focal VUA at 12-, 2-, 4-, 6-, 8- and 10-o’clock (n = 188) were included in the study. Perioperative data and erectile function and continence status over a 12-month period were compared. Results Demographic and perioperative data were similar between the two groups. The proportion of patients with VUA stricture in the first group was significantly higher than in the second group (5.1% vs 3.2%, p = 0.017). The mean time to stricture development was also shorter in the first group (48.9 vs 74.3 days, p = 0.002). In the second group, the proportion of continent patients at the sixth and twelfth months was higher than the first group (79.3% vs 62.8%, p <0.001; 92.4% vs 81.3%, p = 0.032, respectively). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the proportions of potent patients (p = 0.194 for 6 months and p = 0.351 for 12 months). Conclusions Better continence results can be obtained with the six-focus VUA compared to the four-focus technique. The number of anostomotic sutures in VUA can affect functional results and may be a decisive factor for surgeons who focus on functional results as well as oncological results.

Peer review status:ACCEPTED

05 Jan 2021Submitted to International Journal of Clinical Practice
06 Jan 2021Submission Checks Completed
06 Jan 2021Assigned to Editor
18 Mar 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
04 Apr 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
04 May 20211st Revision Received
04 May 2021Submission Checks Completed
04 May 2021Assigned to Editor
04 May 2021Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 May 2021Reviewer(s) Assigned
21 May 2021Editorial Decision: Accept