RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재 SCIE SCOPUS

      Prevalence of Postprostatectomy Incontinence Requiring Antiincontinence Surgery After Radical Prostatectomy for Prostate Cancer: A Retrospective Population-Based Analysis

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A107862942

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer.
      Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and State Inpatient Databases, 2008 to 2010, radical prostatectomy (RP) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 procedure codes and among this cohort, PI was identified also using ICD-9/10 codes. Surgical approaches included minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) versus open (retropubic or perineal) RP. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of surgery for PI. The secondary outcome was the association of PI requiring anti-incontinence surgery with the surgical approach for RP.
      Results: Among the 13,535 patients initially included in the study (mean age, 63.3 years), 6,932 (51.2%) underwent open RP and 6,603 (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive RP. The overall prevalence of surgical procedures for PI during the observation period among the all patients who had received RP was 3.3%. The rate of PI surgery for patients receiving minimally invasive surgery was higher than that for patients receiving open surgery (4.8% vs. 3.0%; risk difference, 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%–3.4%). The adjusted prevalence of PI surgery for patients who had undergone laparoscopic RP was higher than that for those with retropubic RP (8.6% vs. 3.7%).
      Conclusions: Among patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer, the prevalence of PI surgery is not negligible. Patients undergoing minimally invasive RP had higher adjusted rates for PI surgery compared to open approaches, which was attributed to high rate of PI surgery following laparoscopic approach and low rate of PI surgery following perineal approach. More studies are needed to establish strategies to reduce the rate of PI surgery after RP.
      번역하기

      Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Fl...

      Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer.
      Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and State Inpatient Databases, 2008 to 2010, radical prostatectomy (RP) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 procedure codes and among this cohort, PI was identified also using ICD-9/10 codes. Surgical approaches included minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) versus open (retropubic or perineal) RP. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of surgery for PI. The secondary outcome was the association of PI requiring anti-incontinence surgery with the surgical approach for RP.
      Results: Among the 13,535 patients initially included in the study (mean age, 63.3 years), 6,932 (51.2%) underwent open RP and 6,603 (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive RP. The overall prevalence of surgical procedures for PI during the observation period among the all patients who had received RP was 3.3%. The rate of PI surgery for patients receiving minimally invasive surgery was higher than that for patients receiving open surgery (4.8% vs. 3.0%; risk difference, 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%–3.4%). The adjusted prevalence of PI surgery for patients who had undergone laparoscopic RP was higher than that for those with retropubic RP (8.6% vs. 3.7%).
      Conclusions: Among patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer, the prevalence of PI surgery is not negligible. Patients undergoing minimally invasive RP had higher adjusted rates for PI surgery compared to open approaches, which was attributed to high rate of PI surgery following laparoscopic approach and low rate of PI surgery following perineal approach. More studies are needed to establish strategies to reduce the rate of PI surgery after RP.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 Majoros A, "Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy(prospective urodynamic study)" 25 : 2-7, 2006

      2 Haglind E, "Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial" 68 : 216-225, 2015

      3 Sacco E, "Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up" 97 : 1234-1241, 2006

      4 Stanford JL, "Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer : the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study" 283 : 354-360, 2000

      5 Kim PH, "Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy : a population based analysis" 189 : 602-608, 2013

      6 O’Neil B, "The comparative harms of open and robotic prostatectomy in population based samples" 195 : 321-329, 2016

      7 Harris MJ, "The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy : an outcomes-based evolution" 52 : 81-88, 2007

      8 Ficarra V, "Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy" 62 : 405-417, 2012

      9 Schroeck FR, "Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy" 54 : 785-793, 2008

      10 El-Hakim A, "Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature" 6 : 11-20, 2006

      1 Majoros A, "Urinary incontinence and voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy(prospective urodynamic study)" 25 : 2-7, 2006

      2 Haglind E, "Urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction after robotic versus open radical prostatectomy: a prospective, controlled, nonrandomised trial" 68 : 216-225, 2015

      3 Sacco E, "Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up" 97 : 1234-1241, 2006

      4 Stanford JL, "Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer : the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study" 283 : 354-360, 2000

      5 Kim PH, "Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy : a population based analysis" 189 : 602-608, 2013

      6 O’Neil B, "The comparative harms of open and robotic prostatectomy in population based samples" 195 : 321-329, 2016

      7 Harris MJ, "The anatomic radical perineal prostatectomy : an outcomes-based evolution" 52 : 81-88, 2007

      8 Ficarra V, "Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy" 62 : 405-417, 2012

      9 Schroeck FR, "Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy" 54 : 785-793, 2008

      10 El-Hakim A, "Robotic prostatectomy: a pooled analysis of published literature" 6 : 11-20, 2006

      11 Freedland SJ, "Risk of prostate cancer-specific mortality following biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy" 294 : 433-439, 2005

      12 Tienza A, "Prevalence analysis of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy and influential preoperative factors in a single institution" 21 : 24-30, 2018

      13 Cho DS, "Postoperative membranous urethral length is the single most important surgical factor predicting recovery of postoperative urinary continence" 38 : 930-, 2020

      14 Loughlin KR, "Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence : a confluence of 3 factors" 183 : 871-877, 2010

      15 Trofimenko V, "Post-prostatectomy incontinence : how common and bothersome is it really" 5 : 536-543, 2017

      16 Sharma V, "Open conversion during minimally invasive radical prostatectomy : impact on perioperative complications and predictors from national data" 192 : 1657-1662, 2014

      17 Sujenthiran A, "National cohort study comparing severe mediumterm urinary complications after robot-assisted vs laparoscopic vs retropubic open radical prostatectomy" 121 : 445-452, 2018

      18 Yamamoto S, "Long-term oncological outcome in men with T3 prostate cancer : radical prostatectomy versus external-beam radiation therapy at a single institution" 19 : 1085-1091, 2014

      19 Bishoff JT, "Incidence of fecal and urinary incontinence following radical perineal and retropubic prostatectomy in a national population" 160 : 454-458, 1998

      20 Holm HV, "How should continence and incontinence after radical prostatectomy be evaluated? A prospective study of patient ratings and changes with time" 192 : 1155-1161, 2014

      21 Penson DF, "General quality of life 2 years following treatment for prostate cancer : what influences outcomes? Results from the prostate cancer outcomes study" 21 : 1147-1154, 2003

      22 Menon M, "Functional recovery, oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: an evidencebased analysis comparing the Retzius sparing and standard approaches" 199 : 1210-1217, 2018

      23 Bauer RM, "Contemporary management of postprostatectomy incontinence" 59 : 985-996, 2011

      24 Huang X, "Comparison of perioperative, functional, and oncologic outcomes between standard laparoscopic and robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systemic review and meta-analysis" 31 : 1045-1060, 2017

      25 Lowrance WT, "Comparative effectiveness of prostate cancer surgical treatments : a population based analysis of postoperative outcomes" 183 : 1366-1372, 2010

      26 Hu JC, "Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy" 302 : 1557-1564, 2009

      27 Barry MJ, "Adverse effects of robotic-assisted laparoscopic versus open retropubic radical prostatectomy among a nationwide random sample of medicareage men" 30 : 513-518, 2012

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2023 평가예정 해외DB학술지평가 신청대상 (해외등재 학술지 평가)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (해외등재 학술지 평가) KCI등재
      2012-01-01 평가 등재 1차 FAIL (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-04-30 학술지명변경 한글명 : 대한배뇨장애요실금학회지 -> International Neurourology Journal
      외국어명 : The Journal of Korean Continence Society -> International Neurourology Journal
      KCI등재
      2009-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2007-04-26 학술지명변경 한글명 : 대한배뇨장애 및 요실금학회지 -> 대한배뇨장애요실금학회지
      외국어명 : 미등록 -> The Journal of Korean Continence Society
      KCI등재후보
      2007-03-13 학회명변경 한글명 : 대한배뇨장애 및 요실금학회 -> 대한배뇨장애요실금학회 KCI등재후보
      2007-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
      2006-03-29 학술지명변경 한글명 : 대한배뇨장애 및 요실금학회지 Vol.5, No.1 -> 대한배뇨장애 및 요실금학회지 KCI등재후보
      2005-01-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 1.74 0.51 1.26
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.96 0.75 0.628 0.03
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼