Introduction: The study aimed to determine if the presence and amount of striated muscle on the apical sections of the cruciate sections of laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) specimens predict early and long-term urinary continence outcomes. Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of our prospectively collected single surgeon LRP database. We identified patients based on their continence outcomes (continent (0 pads) or incontinent at 12 months), with an approximate even spread early continent and incontinent patients). An uropathologist separate from the urology team was blinded to outcome and assessed each patients' apical cruciate sections (H&E stained) for the presence, percentage and maximal diameter of muscle and extraprostatic tissue on these sections. Specifically 2 scoring systems were used: (1) semi-quantitative estimation of percentage of muscle on the apical cruciate sections (low <5% and high >5%) and (2) percentage of total extraprostatic tissue on cruciate section (low <10% and high >10%). Logistic regression and classification and regression tree analyses were performed to identify the predictors of urinary incontinence (UI). Results: In total 80 patients were analyzed, 38 were continent and 42 were incontinent at 12 months follow-up. The percentage of extraprostatic tissue/muscle being an independent predictor of being wet at 12 months (p = 0.002) on multivariate regression along with age (p = 0.04). Using percentage of extraprostatic tissue in cruciate section (high >10%) to predict UI at 12 months, it yielded 71% sensitivity, 82% specificity, 81% PPV, 72% NPV and 76% accuracy. Conclusion: The use of simple additional reporting of muscle and extraprostatic tissue on the apical sections of RP specimens can help to better predict the likelihood of continence return.

Keywords:
Incontinence, Prostate, Apical, Rhabdosphincter, Cancer, Endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy, Laparoscopy
1.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC, et al: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012;62:405-417.
2.
Good DW, Stewart GD, Laird A, Stolzenburg JU, Cahill D, McNeill SA: A critical analysis of the learning curve and postlearning curve outcomes of two experience- and volume-matched surgeons for laparoscopic and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2015;29:939-947.
3.
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, et al: Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 2010;24:2003-2015.
4.
Bates AS, Martin RM, Terry TR: Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 2015;116:623-633.
5.
Good DW, Delaney H, Laird A, Hacking B, Stewart GD, McNeill SA: Consultation audio-recording reduces long-term decision regret after prostate cancer treatment: a non-randomised comparative cohort study. Surgeon 2015;pii:S1479-666X(14)00139-5.
6.
Johansson E, Steineck G, Holmberg L, et al: Long-term quality-of-life outcomes after radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting: the Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group-4 randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:891-899.
7.
Stolzenburg JU, Schwalenberg T, Horn LC, Neuhaus J, Constantinides C, Liatsikos EN: Anatomical landmarks of radical prostatecomy. Eur Urol 2007;51:629-639.
8.
Strasser H, Klima G, Poisel S, Horninger W, Bartsch G: Anatomy and innervation of the rhabdosphincter of the male urethra. Prostate 1996;28:24-31.
9.
Skeldon SC, Gani J, Evans A, Van Der Kwast T, Radomski SB: Striated muscle in the prostatic apex: does the amount in radical prostatectomy specimens predict postprostatectomy urinary incontinence? Urology 2014;83:888-892.
10.
McNeill SA, Good DW, Stewart GD, Stolzenburg JU: Five-year oncological outcomes of endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE) for prostate cancer: results from a medium-volume UK centre. BJU Int 2014;113:449-457.
11.
Samaratunga H, Montironi R, True L, et al: International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Consensus Conference on Handling and Staging of Radical Prostatectomy Specimens. Working group 1: specimen handling. Mod Pathol 2011;24:6-15.
12.
Stewart GD, El-Mokadem I, McLornan ME, Stolzenburg JU, McNeill SA: Functional and oncological outcomes of men under 60 years of age having endoscopic surgery for prostate cancer are optimal following intrafascial endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy. Surgeon 2011;9:65-71.
13.
Dorschner W, Stolzenburg JU, Dieterich F: A new theory of micturition and urinary continence based on histomorphological studies. 2. The musculus sphincter vesicae: continence or sexual function? Urol Int 1994;52:154-158.
14.
Schroder HD, Reske-Nielsen E: Fiber types in the striated urethral and anal sphincters. Acta Neuropathol 1983;60:278-282.
15.
Matsushita K, Kent MT, Vickers AJ, et al: Preoperative predictive model of recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 2015;116:577-583.
16.
Stolzenburg JU, Qazi HA, Holze S, et al: Evaluating the learning curve of experienced laparoscopic surgeons in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. J Endourol 2013;27:80-85.
17.
Graefen M, Beyer B, Schlomm T: Outcome of radical prostatectomy: is it the approach or the surgical expertise? Eur Urol 2014;66:457-458.
18.
OʼDonnell PD, Finan BF: Continence following nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1989;142:1227-1228; discussion 1229.
19.
Klein EA: Early continence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1992;148:92-95.
20.
Eastham JA, Kattan MW, Rogers E, Goad JR, Ohori M, Boone TB, Scardino PT: Risk factors for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 1996;156:1707-1713.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.