{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,10]],"date-time":"2023-09-10T12:40:22Z","timestamp":1694349622757},"reference-count":19,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"5","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,19]],"date-time":"2023-06-19T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1687132800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,19]],"date-time":"2023-06-19T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1687132800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["J Robotic Surg"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>The incontinence after RARP significantly decreases the quality of life in prostate cancer patients. A number of techniques have been introduced for the recovery of continence after RARP. Although, the mechanism of the continence recovery is still unclear. We aimed to evaluate the early recovery of continence after RARP by inducing early anterior adhesion and reducing the hypermobility of the urethra through the modified bladder neck suspension (BNS) procedure. From March 2018 to February 2020, a total of 227 consecutive patients who underwent RARP (by single surgeon) were included. Patients were divided into two groups based on operation procedure (Standard procedure vs BNS procedure). Demographics, perioperative variables, and pathologic outcome were analyzed. We assessed recovery of continence at 1, 3, 6 and 9\u00a0months after surgery. Postoperative recovery of continence defined as the use of no pad during 24\u00a0h. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate independent predictors of the early recovery of continence at 1\u00a0month. We performed RARP with standard procedure (n\u2009=\u2009106) or BNS procedure (n\u2009=\u2009121). There was no statistical difference in perioperative variables between the two groups except anastomosis time (21.6\u2009\u00b1\u200912.9 vs 17.0\u2009\u00b1\u20097.6, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.003). The pad free continence rate were 80.2% (standard group) and 91.3% (BNS group) at 9\u00a0month after RARP (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.037). However, early continence rate (1mo) were significantly higher in the BNS group (12.3% vs 29.1%, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.004). On multivariate logistic analyses, BNS procedure (odds ratio [OR] 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03\u20137.45, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.0426), age (OR 0.92, CI 0.86\u20130.98, <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.0154) were independent factor for early recovery of continence after RARP. The modified bladder neck suspension procedure showed significantly better outcomes than the standard procedure in terms of the early recovery of urinary continence.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1007\/s11701-023-01640-9","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,19]],"date-time":"2023-06-19T18:02:21Z","timestamp":1687197741000},"page":"2279-2285","update-policy":"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Impact of modified bladder neck suspension on early recovery of continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP)"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"17","author":[{"given":"Hyong Woo","family":"Moon","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Seung Ah","family":"Rhew","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Chang Eil","family":"Yoon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Hyeok Jae","family":"Kwon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Yong Hyun","family":"Park","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Ji Youl","family":"Lee","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,19]]},"reference":[{"key":"1640_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"521","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2022.0819","volume":"37","author":"TBC Moretti","year":"2023","unstructured":"Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO (2023) Open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy oncological results: a reverse systematic review. J Endourol 37(5):521\u2013530","journal-title":"J Endourol"},{"issue":"5","key":"1640_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"650","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2021.07.025","volume":"80","author":"A Lantz","year":"2021","unstructured":"Lantz A et al (2021) Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8-year follow-up. Eur Urol 80(5):650\u2013660","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1640_CR3","first-page":"4736","volume":"16","author":"KA Guru","year":"2009","unstructured":"Guru KA et al (2009) Current status of robot-assisted surgery in urology: a multi-national survey of 297 urologic surgeons. Can J Urol 16(4):4736\u20134741 (discussion 4741)","journal-title":"Can J Urol"},{"issue":"6","key":"1640_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"814","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2018.11.035","volume":"76","author":"AN Vis","year":"2019","unstructured":"Vis AN et al (2019) Posterior, anterior, and periurethral surgical reconstruction of urinary continence mechanisms in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a description and video compilation of commonly performed surgical techniques. Eur Urol 76(6):814\u2013822","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"6","key":"1640_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"974","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2013.06.046","volume":"64","author":"A Galfano","year":"2013","unstructured":"Galfano A et al (2013) Beyond the learning curve of the Retzius-sparing approach for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: oncologic and functional results of the first 200 patients with \u2265 1 year of follow-up. Eur Urol 64(6):974\u2013980","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1640_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"692","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2014.10.020","volume":"68","author":"F Reeves","year":"2015","unstructured":"Reeves F et al (2015) Preservation of the neurovascular bundles is associated with improved time to continence after radical prostatectomy but not long-term continence rates: results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 68(4):692\u2013704","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"9","key":"1640_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1492","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1464-410X.2010.10015.x","volume":"108","author":"DL Pick","year":"2011","unstructured":"Pick DL et al (2011) The impact of cavernosal nerve preservation on continence after robotic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 108(9):1492\u20131496","journal-title":"BJU Int"},{"issue":"3","key":"1640_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"743","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2010.03.089","volume":"76","author":"JU Stolzenburg","year":"2010","unstructured":"Stolzenburg JU et al (2010) A comparison of outcomes for interfascial and intrafascial nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urology 76(3):743\u2013748","journal-title":"Urology"},{"issue":"11","key":"1640_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1052","DOI":"10.1111\/iju.12214","volume":"20","author":"Y Kojima","year":"2013","unstructured":"Kojima Y et al (2013) Urinary incontinence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: pathophysiology and intraoperative techniques to improve surgical outcome. Int J Urol 20(11):1052\u20131063","journal-title":"Int J Urol"},{"issue":"4","key":"1640_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"609","DOI":"10.1007\/s00345-018-2174-1","volume":"36","author":"A Basiri","year":"2018","unstructured":"Basiri A et al (2018) Comparison of retropubic, laparoscopic and robotic radical prostatectomy: who is the winner? World J Urol 36(4):609\u2013621","journal-title":"World J Urol"},{"issue":"1","key":"1640_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"47","DOI":"10.1038\/s41391-021-00459-5","volume":"25","author":"J Liu","year":"2022","unstructured":"Liu J et al (2022) Comparison of Retzius-sparing and conventional robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy regarding continence and sexual function: an updated meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 25(1):47\u201354","journal-title":"Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis"},{"issue":"2","key":"1640_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"236","DOI":"10.1111\/bju.12705","volume":"114","author":"SK Lim","year":"2014","unstructured":"Lim SK et al (2014) Retzius-sparing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: combining the best of retropubic and perineal approaches. BJU Int 114(2):236\u2013244","journal-title":"BJU Int"},{"issue":"7","key":"1640_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2187","DOI":"10.1007\/s00464-018-6499-z","volume":"33","author":"AD Asimakopoulos","year":"2019","unstructured":"Asimakopoulos AD et al (2019) Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective randomized comparison on immediate continence rates. Surg Endosc 33(7):2187\u20132196","journal-title":"Surg Endosc"},{"issue":"1","key":"1640_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"84","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2010.03.028","volume":"58","author":"N Joshi","year":"2010","unstructured":"Joshi N et al (2010) Impact of posterior musculofascial reconstruction on early continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective parallel group trial. Eur Urol 58(1):84\u201389","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"6","key":"1640_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"972","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2009.09.017","volume":"56","author":"MP Freire","year":"2009","unstructured":"Freire MP et al (2009) Anatomic bladder neck preservation during robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of technique and outcomes. Eur Urol 56(6):972\u2013980","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"8","key":"1640_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"930","DOI":"10.1089\/end.2013.0794","volume":"28","author":"A Hamada","year":"2014","unstructured":"Hamada A et al (2014) Early return of continence in patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using modified maximal urethral length preservation technique. J Endourol 28(8):930\u2013938","journal-title":"J Endourol"},{"issue":"3","key":"1640_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"485","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2015.08.005","volume":"69","author":"F Porpiglia","year":"2016","unstructured":"Porpiglia F et al (2016) Total Anatomical reconstruction during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: implications on early recovery of urinary continence. Eur Urol 69(3):485\u2013495","journal-title":"Eur Urol"},{"issue":"3","key":"1640_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"935","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2014.10.023","volume":"193","author":"CW Jeong","year":"2015","unstructured":"Jeong CW et al (2015) Effects of new 1-step posterior reconstruction method on recovery of continence after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: results of a prospective, single-blind, parallel group, randomized, controlled trial. J Urol 193(3):935\u2013942","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"issue":"15","key":"1640_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1171","DOI":"10.1093\/jnci\/djm060","volume":"99","author":"AJ Vickers","year":"2007","unstructured":"Vickers AJ et al (2007) The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 99(15):1171\u20131177","journal-title":"J Natl Cancer Inst"}],"container-title":["Journal of Robotic Surgery"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11701-023-01640-9.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s11701-023-01640-9\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s11701-023-01640-9.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,9,9]],"date-time":"2023-09-09T05:11:42Z","timestamp":1694236302000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s11701-023-01640-9"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,19]]},"references-count":19,"journal-issue":{"issue":"5","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,10]]}},"alternative-id":["1640"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s11701-023-01640-9","relation":{},"ISSN":["1863-2491"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1863-2491","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023,6,19]]},"assertion":[{"value":"13 May 2023","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"28 May 2023","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"19 June 2023","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"The authors declare no competing interests.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflict of interest"}}]}}