The efficacy and feasibility of total reconstruction versus nontotal reconstruction of the pelvic floor on short-term and long-term urinary continence rates after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis.

backgroundRecently, total pelvic floor reconstruction (TR) has been the treatment of choice for improving urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). However, the superiority of TR with respect to urinary continence recovery following RP remains controversial. This study identified the effect of TR versus nonTR of the pelvic floor on short-term and long-term continence rates after RP.

methodsA literature search was performed in November 2017 using the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases. Only comparative research or clinical studies reporting urinary continence outcomes was included in the meta-analysis, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the 2011 Level of Evidence for therapy research.

resultsWe analyzed ten studies reporting urinary continence rates after RP at one or more postoperative time points (1, 2, 4, 12, 24, and 52 weeks). TR was associated with significantly better urinary continence outcomes at 1 week (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.58-4.84, P < 0.001), 2 weeks (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.74-3.80, P < 0.001), 4 weeks (OR 2.61, 95% CI 1.56-4.38, P < 0.001), 12 weeks (OR 4.33, 95% CI 2.01-9.33, P < 0.001), 24 weeks (OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.54-9.55, P = 0.004), 52 weeks (OR 4.10, 95% CI 1.80-9.38, P < 0.001) after RP. There was no difference in the rate of complications between the two arms (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.19-1.54, P = 0.25).

conclusionsCompared with nonTR, TR is significantly and positively associated with a return to continence but not with complication rate in men following RP, suggesting that TR may be useful for decreasing the urinary incontinence rate after surgery.