Login to Access Video or Poster Abstract: MP93-12
Sources of Funding: None

Introduction

Time to and overall likelihood to achieve recovery of functional outcomes within one year of undergoing a radical prostatectomy are of high importance to many patients post-RP, with return of continence and potency being at the top of the list. Age at surgery, comorbidities, rehabilitation compliance, pre-operative-SHIM and degree of nerve spare during surgery encompass some of the main impactors of recovery outcomes and therefore are utilized in the current retrospective analysis to further subdivided men ≤ 55 yo with a minimal follow-up of 1 year.

Methods

In a retrospective analysis of our IRB approved database between January 2008 and January 2016, 1411 patients who underwent RARP were 55 years old (yo) or less with an average age of 51 ± 0.1 yo (range 32 to 55 yo). Within this subgroup, 1,087 patients had a minimum of one year of follow-up and therefore were included in this analysis of functional outcomes. Date of return of continence and potency were both self-reported. Return of continence was defined as the use of no-pads each day, while return of potency was defined as the ability to achieve an erection and to have successful intercourse more than 50% of the time. All statistical analysis was completed in JMP 12 utilizing a Tukey all pairs test.

Results

When subdivided by age, while there was no significant difference in the percentage of men in each age subgroup in return to continence, there was a significant increase in the number of days to return to continence in Group 3 (65 ± 4) versus Group 1 (45 ± 3). While, the percentage of men and the number of days to potency in Group 3 (82%; 159 ± 11) was significantly higher than Group 1 (91%; 122 ± 16). Next, when subdivided by both age and pre-op SHIM, there was no significant difference in the number of days to continence or percentage of patients with return within one year. Lastly when subdivided by all here factors (age, pre-op SHIM, and NS), there were no significant differences in the number of days or percentage of patients whom achieved continence within one year. While, group 3 was most effects by both degree of nerve spare and pre-operative SHIM, with the main significant difference being in Group 3b when subdivided into FNS versus PNS.

Conclusions

Age, pre-operative SHIM and degree of nerve spare all have a significant effect on the return of continence and potency in men ? 55yo, thereby reinforcing the role of each in return of functional outcomes. Increases in age have a significant impact on recovery of potency. Younger patients with a pre-operative SHIM >20 who underwent a FNS report the fastest return to both continence and potency.

Funding

None