Effect of intensive outpatient guidance on urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy
-
摘要:
目的 评估尿失禁门诊强化指导对前列腺癌根治术后患者尿控功能恢复的影响,并探索最佳的尿控康复指导流程。
方法 回顾性分析2021年5月1日至2024年3月10日由单术者实施的548例根治性前列腺切除术患者的临床资料。根据术后20 d内是否接受尿失禁门诊强化指导,将患者分为标准组(
n =399)和门诊强化组(n =149)。强化指导旨在提高盆底肌肉训练依从性,纠正错误训练方式,强调尿控训练及排尿日记的重要性,从而提升盆底肌肉训练效果并缩短尿控恢复时间。比较两组患者拔除尿管后不同时间点的尿控恢复情况,采用Kaplan-Meier方法绘制尿控恢复曲线,并行log-rank检验。结果 排除术后即刻控尿患者后,术后90 d(早期)尿控恢复率标准组和门诊强化组分别为59.5%(194/326)和70.8%(85/120),差异有统计学意义(
P <0.05)。两组间术后42 d(极早期)、180 d及365(远期)尿控恢复率差异均无统计学意义(均P >0.05)。结论 门诊强化指导可显著促进术后早期尿控恢复,但对远期尿控恢复无明显改善。建议在术后早期阶段加强门诊康复指导,以优化尿控康复进程。
Abstract:Objective To evaluate the effect of intensive outpatient guidance on urinary continence recovery in patients after radical prostatectomy, and to explore an optimal procedure for urinary continence rehabilitation.
Methods Clinical data of 548 patients, who underwent radical prostatectomy performed by a single surgeon between May 1, 2021, and Mar. 10, 2024, were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were assigned to standard group (
n =399) or intensive outpatient group (n =149) according to whether they received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. The intensive guidance aimed to improve adherence to pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), correct improper training techniques, and reinforce the importance of continence training and voiding diaries, thereby enhancing PFMT efficiency and shortening the duration of continence recovery. Urinary continence recovery after catheter removal was compared between the 2 groups at different time points. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to estimate continence recovery, and the log-rank test was performed.Results After excluding patients with immediate continence, the 90-d (early period) continence recovery rates were 59.5% (194/326) in the standard group and 70.8% (85/120) in the intensive outpatient group, showing a significant difference (
P < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between groups at 42 (ultra-early period), 180 or 365 d (long-term period) postoperatively (allP > 0.05).Conclusion Intensive outpatient guidance can significantly accelerate early postoperative continence recovery but does not improve long-term continence outcomes. Strengthening intensive outpatient guidance in the early postoperative period is recommended to optimize continence recovery.
-
尿失禁(urinary incontinence,UI)是机器人辅助根治性前列腺切除术(robot-assisted radical prostatectomy,RARP)后常见的并发症,严重影响患者的生活质量[1],是术后康复过程中医患双方共同关注的重要问题。除肿瘤分期、手术切除范围及解剖重建程度外,科学规范的盆底肌肉训练也是促进术后尿控恢复的关键因素[2]。通过针对性的尿控康复宣教、及时评估患者训练质量并纠正错误动作,有望加快术后尿失禁的康复进程。有效的术后尿控康复指导需医护患三方协同配合,涵盖围术期病房宣教、门诊康复强化指导、远程随访评估等多种模式[3-4]。然而,多模式康复指导流程可能会增加医疗资源消耗,因此有必要进一步评估最优的康复指导方案。海军军医大学第一附属医院泌尿外科根治术后尿控康复指导模式历经简单口头宣教、围术期标准化病房宣教、叠加出院后护理专病门诊强化指导3个阶段,本研究旨在评估门诊强化指导对患者术后尿控康复的影响,明确最佳康复指导方案与流程。
1 资料和方法
1.1 研究对象
选取2021年5月1日至2024年3月10日于海军军医大学第一附属医院泌尿外科接受RARP的患者776例作为研究对象,所有手术均由同一位术者主刀。排除主要研究指标或尿控随访数据缺失的患者228例,最终纳入患者548例。回顾性分析患者的基本信息、临床资料、病理学诊断及描述,以及术后尿控恢复、尿失禁护理门诊就诊情况等。泌尿外科于2021年5月开设尿失禁护理门诊,依据患者术后20 d内是否接受门诊强化指导,将其分为标准组(未接受或未在规定时间内接受门诊强化指导)和门诊强化组(术后20 d内接受门诊强化指导)。
1.2 康复方案
所有患者在住院期间均接受尿失禁相关宣教,术后12~20 d被要求前往尿失禁护理门诊拔除尿管,并接受门诊强化指导。
住院宣教主要内容包括:(1)尿失禁风险告知。向患者说明尿失禁是根治性前列腺切除术后的常见并发症,其发生与年龄、体重指数、前列腺体积、功能性尿道长度等因素相关。尿失禁症状通常在术后短期内出现,但也可能长期存在,需接受针对性治疗。(2)尿失禁评估方法。记录排尿日记(排尿量、漏尿量、尿垫使用数量)、进行尿垫试验以及采用相关问卷调查。(3)生活方式干预。①合理控制液体摄入的总量与时间,例如上午可饮水1~1.5 L,下午至夜晚减少至0.5~1 L,睡前避免饮水;②避免摄入辛辣刺激食物,减少浓茶、咖啡的饮用,多食用蔬菜、水果;③戒烟;④3个月内避免重体力劳动及骑跨动作。(4)盆底肌肉训练。拔除尿管后,每日进行提肛锻炼,训练时长至少持续3个月。单次收缩与放松为一组,初始训练强度建议采取卧位姿势,每日150~200组,可分时段进行。训练要点为呼气时收缩耻尾肌,持续3~4 s;吸气时放松耻尾肌,同样保持3~4 s。训练过程中需特别注意避免腹部与臀部肌肉的收缩。若患者会阴部出现酸胀感,可适当减少训练量,以保证会阴部肌肉得到充分休息;若患者能够耐受训练,则可循序渐进地增加训练强度。每日训练组数从150~200组调整为200~250组。训练体位依次从卧位过渡到坐位,再到立位,最后融入行走、活动等场景中进行。每组动作的持续时间从6~8 s延长至10~12 s。(5)膀胱训练(憋尿训练)。主要通过训练尿道复合体的骨骼肌来改善相关功能。(6)适当的生物反馈及电刺激治疗。对于上述保守治疗无效的患者,医生将依据尿失禁的类型及严重程度,选择药物、针灸或手术等治疗方案。
标准组未接受或未按规定时间接受门诊强化指导,门诊强化组接受的门诊强化指导主要内容除重复住院宣教内容、询问患者每日漏尿量、重申尿控训练及排尿日记的重要性外,重点为盆底肌Glazer评估。具体操作是在患者肛门内塞入电极、腹部皮肤贴电极片,随后让患者按照语音提示完成评估。(1)前静息阶段:通过1 min的放松测试,判断肌肉是否存在过度活跃情况;(2)快速收缩阶段:进行5次快速收缩,每次收缩前有10 s休息时间,用于测试快肌功能;(3)紧张收缩阶段:进行5次10 s持续收缩,每次收缩前有10 s休息时间,用于测试慢肌肌力;(4)耐力收缩阶段:单次保持60 s的收缩状态,以测试慢肌的耐力水平;(5)后静息阶段:测试完成一系列动作后,肌肉是否恢复至正常状态。医护人员可根据盆底肌与腹肌电压数据纠正患者不规范的盆底肌肉训练动作,帮助其准确理解并感受动作要领,从而规范地开展盆底肌肉训练。
1.3 观察指标
主要观察指标为每日尿垫使用数量及其变化时间,数据来源于患者排尿日记、医生门诊询问或电话随访。患者是否在术后20 d内至尿失禁护理门诊就诊,通过医院门诊系统查询确认。术后尿控恢复定义为每日使用0~1片尿垫;术后即刻控尿定义为术后19 d内每日使用0~1片尿垫。结局均为剔除术后即刻控尿患者后的尿控恢复率。主要结局为术后90 d内(即早期)的尿控恢复率,次要结局为术后42 d内(即极早期)的尿控恢复率、术后180 d及365 d内(即远期)的尿控恢复率。随访时长为从手术当日至首次出现结局事件的天数。
1.4 统计学处理
应用SPSS 26.0软件对数据进行统计学分析。符合正态分布的计量资料以x±s表示,组间比较采用t检验。符合偏态分布的计量资料以M(Q1,Q3)表示,组间比较采用秩和检验。计数资料以频数和百分数表示,组间比较采用χ2检验。使用R 4.3.1软件绘制Kaplan-Meier曲线,评估术后不同时间点尿控恢复情况,并采用log-rank检验比较不同组间尿控恢复曲线的差异。对术后即刻尿控率及术后各随访时间点的尿控恢复率进行组间比较,采用χ2检验进行统计分析。检验水准(α)为0.05。
2 结果
2.1 两组基线资料比较
共纳入548例患者,其中标准组399例,门诊强化组149例。两组患者的基线资料差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。见表 1。
表 1 两组RARP术后患者基线资料比较Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between 2 groups of patients after RARPIndex Standard group N=399 Intensive outpatient group N=149 P value kAge/year, x±s 67.70±7.09 67.89±6.67 0.777 Body mass index/(kg·m-2), x±s 24.61±2.95 24.49±2.78 0.682 Prostate-specific antigen/(ng·mL-1), M (Q1, Q3) 10.97 (7.71, 20.53) 9.74 (7.10, 16.55) 0.104 Gleason scorea, n (%) 0.729 <7 37 (9.7) 16 (11.1) 7 239 (62.7) 85 (59.0) >7 105 (27.6) 43 (29.9) Surgical approach, n (%) 0.508 Transperitoneal 395 (99.0) 149 (100.0) Extraperitoneal 4 (1.0) 0 pT, n (%) 0.204 pT2 208 (52.1) 90 (60.4) pT3a 120 (30.1) 39 (26.2) pT3b 71 (17.8) 20 (13.4) Positive surgical margin, n (%) 100 (25.1) 30 (20.1) 0.228 Preoperative history of TURP, n (%) 2 (0.5) 0 1.000 Postoperative use of ADT, n (%) 20 (5.0) 4 (2.7) 0.236 a: Gleason scores were unavailable for 18 patients in the standard group and 5 patients in the intensive outpatient group, respectively. The standard group consists of patients who did not receive intensive outpatient guidance, while the intensive outpatient group comprises patients who received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; pT: Pathological primary tumor stage; TURP: Transurethral resection of the prostate; ADT: Androgen deprivation therapy. 2.2 尿控结果比较
χ2检验的初步分析结果显示,标准组、门诊强化组术后即刻尿控率差异无统计学意义(18.3% vs 19.5%,P>0.05)。标准组、门诊强化组中随访时长不足365 d的患者分别为16例、6例,其中随访时长不足180 d的患者分别为13例、2例。在剔除术后即刻控尿患者及随访时长不足的患者后,对不同时间点的尿控恢复情况进行比较,结果显示标准组、门诊强化组术后42 d(极早期)的尿控恢复率差异无统计学意义(30.4% vs 35.8%,P>0.05);术后90 d(早期)时,门诊强化组尿控恢复率高于标准组,差异有统计学意义(70.8% vs 59.5%,P<0.05);而标准组、门诊强化组术后180 d及365 d(远期)的尿控恢复率差异均无统计学意义(82.7% vs 86.4%,90.6% vs 95.6%;均P>0.05)。见表 2。Kaplan-Meier曲线分析结果见图 1。结果表明,门诊强化指导可显著提高术后90 d的尿控恢复率,但对术后42 d、180 d及365 d的尿控恢复率无显著影响。
表 2 两组RARP术后患者的尿控结局比较Table 2 Urinary continence outcomes between 2 groups of patients after RARP% (n/N) Outcome Standard group Intensive outpatient group P value Immediate continence 18.3 (73/399) 19.5 (29/149) 0.755 42-d postoperative UC recovery 30.4 (99/326) 35.8 (43/120) 0.272 90-d postoperative UC recovery 59.5 (194/326) 70.8 (85/120) 0.028 180-d postoperative UC recovery 82.7 (259/313) 86.4 (102/118) 0.354 365-d postoperative UC recovery 90.6 (281/310) 95.6 (109/114) 0.095 The standard group consists of patients who did not receive intensive outpatient guidance, while the intensive outpatient group comprises patients who received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; UC: Urinary continence.
图 1 两组RARP术后患者尿控功能恢复的Kaplan-Meier曲线Fig. 1 Kaplan-Meier curves for urinary continence recovery in 2 groups of patients after RARPThe standard group consists of patients who did not receive intensive outpatient guidance, while the intensive outpatient group comprises patients who received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. A: Follow-up duration of 42 d; B: Follow-up duration of 90 d; C: Follow-up duration of 180 d; D: Follow-up duration of 365 d. RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.3 讨论
根治性前列腺切除术后尿失禁的发生率为4%~60%,严重影响患者的生活质量,还可能引发焦虑、抑郁等心理问题[5-6]。在美国,尿失禁造成的经济负担估计为190亿~320亿美元[7]。因此,如何提高术后尿控恢复率已成为临床关注的重要议题。
盆底肌肉训练作为一种无创的尿失禁治疗策略,已获全球医学协会认可,是前列腺切除术后重要且有效的治疗方法,且越来越多的文献对此予以支持。多项研究表明,盆底肌肉训练对改善前列腺切除术后男性的尿失禁状况及生活质量具有显著效果[8]。有学者利用术前、术后的MRI数据,证明了盆底肌肉厚度与根治性前列腺切除术后尿控恢复有关[9]。盆底肌肉训练的主要作用是激活和加强盆底肌肉组织,增加肌肉的质量与体积,从而对尿道或膀胱颈部形成压迫[10]。另有报道指出,对于盆底肌肉训练,技能学习与动作要领至关重要,而非单纯依赖力量训练[11]。对于接受根治性前列腺切除术的患者,在住院宣教阶段,由于尚未经历手术及留置尿管,且是在无痛状态下接受教育,部分患者可能无法真切掌握动作要领。错误的训练方法不仅无法促进患者尿控功能的恢复,还可能引发腹部、会阴部疼痛等问题,进而降低患者的训练积极性与依从性,最终导致适得其反的效果。因此,拔除尿管后的初始盆底肌肉训练变得至关重要。这是患者术后首次切身体验康复训练,而早期的门诊强化指导能够帮助患者巩固住院期间所学的知识。通过盆底肌Glazer评估以及医护人员的一对一指导,可及时纠正不规范的训练动作,从而实现早期康复。
本研究中,门诊强化组术后90 d(早期)的尿控恢复率优于标准组[70.8%(85/120)vs 59.5%(194/326)],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),这表明早期开展门诊强化指导有助于根治性前列腺切除术后患者的早期尿控恢复。此外,门诊强化组术后42(极早期)、180及365 d(远期)的尿控恢复率虽均高于标准组,但差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05),提示门诊强化指导对根治性前列腺切除术后极早期及远期尿控恢复的帮助并不显著。推测其原因可能在于盆底肌肉训练的效果需要一定时间积累,对极早期尿控恢复无明显作用。关于远期尿控恢复,有文献报道手术方式及功能部分保留程度是主要影响因素[1],但这并不意味着门诊强化指导对术后尿控康复的临床意义不显著。相反,它能促进患者早期尿控康复,提升生活质量,帮助患者树立生活信心,还为辅助放疗等后续治疗创造了良好时间窗,进而改善患者就医体验、减轻心理负担。
研究表明,手术经验对根治性前列腺切除术后的尿控恢复有影响。在智能臂辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术中,术者完成200例手术后,早期尿控恢复情况有显著提升,学习曲线趋于稳定[12]。本研究中所有手术均由高旭教授主刀,截至2020年,其已完成超过1 400例智能臂辅助腹腔镜根治性前列腺切除术,具备丰富且稳定的手术经验。此外,本研究中两组患者的手术年代一致,进一步排除了术者经验差异对术后尿控恢复的影响。
根据本研究数据显示,真实世界中仅27.19%(149/548)的患者能在术后20 d内按要求前往尿失禁护理门诊接受强化指导,其余患者因地理、交通、经济、依从性等因素,无法接受指导。有研究指出,基于互联网的个体化延续护理有助于提高患者盆底肌肉训练的依从性,促进尿控能力的早期恢复[13]。因此,这一方案对上述无法接受门诊指导的患者而言也是一种有效的选择。
Filocamo等[14]和Manassero等[15]的研究表明,盆底肌肉训练对于尿控的改善效果在12个月的随访中持续存在。然而也有研究表明,接受盆底肌肉训练的患者与对照组相比,1年的尿控恢复率相似[16]。本研究结果显示,对根治性前列腺切除术后患者进行门诊强化指导,其90 d的早期尿控恢复率有显著提升,1年的远期尿控恢复率也有提升但差异无统计学意义。
综上所述,门诊强化指导有助于加快根治性前列腺切除术后早期尿控功能的恢复,但对远期尿控水平无显著提升。建议在术后早期强化门诊康复指导,以优化尿控功能的康复进程。
-
图 1 两组RARP术后患者尿控功能恢复的Kaplan-Meier曲线
Fig. 1 Kaplan-Meier curves for urinary continence recovery in 2 groups of patients after RARP
The standard group consists of patients who did not receive intensive outpatient guidance, while the intensive outpatient group comprises patients who received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. A: Follow-up duration of 42 d; B: Follow-up duration of 90 d; C: Follow-up duration of 180 d; D: Follow-up duration of 365 d. RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
表 1 两组RARP术后患者基线资料比较
Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between 2 groups of patients after RARP
Index Standard group N=399 Intensive outpatient group N=149 P value kAge/year, x±s 67.70±7.09 67.89±6.67 0.777 Body mass index/(kg·m-2), x±s 24.61±2.95 24.49±2.78 0.682 Prostate-specific antigen/(ng·mL-1), M (Q1, Q3) 10.97 (7.71, 20.53) 9.74 (7.10, 16.55) 0.104 Gleason scorea, n (%) 0.729 <7 37 (9.7) 16 (11.1) 7 239 (62.7) 85 (59.0) >7 105 (27.6) 43 (29.9) Surgical approach, n (%) 0.508 Transperitoneal 395 (99.0) 149 (100.0) Extraperitoneal 4 (1.0) 0 pT, n (%) 0.204 pT2 208 (52.1) 90 (60.4) pT3a 120 (30.1) 39 (26.2) pT3b 71 (17.8) 20 (13.4) Positive surgical margin, n (%) 100 (25.1) 30 (20.1) 0.228 Preoperative history of TURP, n (%) 2 (0.5) 0 1.000 Postoperative use of ADT, n (%) 20 (5.0) 4 (2.7) 0.236 a: Gleason scores were unavailable for 18 patients in the standard group and 5 patients in the intensive outpatient group, respectively. The standard group consists of patients who did not receive intensive outpatient guidance, while the intensive outpatient group comprises patients who received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; pT: Pathological primary tumor stage; TURP: Transurethral resection of the prostate; ADT: Androgen deprivation therapy. 表 2 两组RARP术后患者的尿控结局比较
Table 2 Urinary continence outcomes between 2 groups of patients after RARP
% (n/N) Outcome Standard group Intensive outpatient group P value Immediate continence 18.3 (73/399) 19.5 (29/149) 0.755 42-d postoperative UC recovery 30.4 (99/326) 35.8 (43/120) 0.272 90-d postoperative UC recovery 59.5 (194/326) 70.8 (85/120) 0.028 180-d postoperative UC recovery 82.7 (259/313) 86.4 (102/118) 0.354 365-d postoperative UC recovery 90.6 (281/310) 95.6 (109/114) 0.095 The standard group consists of patients who did not receive intensive outpatient guidance, while the intensive outpatient group comprises patients who received intensive outpatient guidance within 20 d after surgery. RARP: Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy; UC: Urinary continence. -
[1] FICARRA V, NOVARA G, ROSEN R C, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy[J]. Eur Urol, 2012, 62(3): 405-417. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.05.045. [2] KOJIMA Y, HAMAKAWA T, KUBOTA Y, et al. Bladder neck sling suspension during robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to improve early return of urinary continence: a comparative analysis[J]. Urology, 2014, 83(3): 632-639. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.059. [3] 董敏. 综合性尿控管理对前列腺癌根治术后短期尿失禁病人尿失禁症状的改善效果[J]. 全科护理, 2022, 20(21): 2975-2977. DOI: 10.12104/j.issn.1674-4748.2022.21.024. [4] 陈丹丹. 综合护理措施在前列腺癌根治术后尿失禁中的应用效果分析[J]. 当代护士(上旬刊), 2017(3): 55-56. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6411.2017.03.027. [5] BAUER R M, GOZZI C, HÜBNER W, et al. Contemporary management of postprostatectomy incontinence[J]. Eur Urol, 2011, 59(6): 985-996. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.020. [6] BRASLIS K G, SANTA-CRUZ C, BRICKMAN A L, et al. Quality of life 12 months after radical prostatectomy[J]. Br J Urol, 1995, 75(1): 48-53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410x.1995.tb07231.x. [7] LEE R, TE A E, KAPLAN S A, et al. Temporal trends in adoption of and indications for the artificial urinary sphincter[J]. J Urol, 2009, 181(6): 2622-2627. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.01.113. [8] ALI M, HUTCHISON D D, ORTIZ N M, et al. A narrative review of pelvic floor muscle training in the management of incontinence following prostate treatment[J]. Transl Androl Urol, 2022, 11(8): 1200-1209. DOI: 10.21037/tau-22-143. [9] SONG C, DOO C K, HONG J H, et al. Relationship between the integrity of the pelvic floor muscles and early recovery of continence after radical prostatectomy[J]. J Urol, 2007, 178(1): 208-211. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.044. [10] BURNETT A L, MOSTWIN J L. In situ anatomical study of the male urethral sphincteric complex: relevance to continence preservation following major pelvic surgery[J]. J Urol, 1998, 160(4): 1301-1306. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62521-7 [11] SAYNER A, NAHON I. Pelvic floor muscle training in radical prostatectomy and recent understanding of the male continence mechanism: a review[J]. Semin Oncol Nurs, 2020, 36(4): 151050. DOI: 10.1016/j.soncn.2020.151050. [12] DOUMERC N, YUEN C, SAVDIE R, et al. Should experienced open prostatic surgeons convert to robotic surgery? The real learning curve for one surgeon over 3 years[J]. BJU Int, 2010, 106(3): 378-384. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2009.09158.x. [13] 周小波, 张璟, 杨哲, 等. "互联网+"个体化延续护理在前列腺癌术后尿失禁患者中的应用[J]. 护理与康复, 2022, 21(10): 49-52. [14] FILOCAMO M T, LI MARZI V, DEL POPOLO G, et al. Effectiveness of early pelvic floor rehabilitation treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence[J]. Eur Urol, 2005, 48(5): 734-738. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.06.004. [15] MANASSERO F, TRAVERSI C, ALES V, et al. Contribution of early intensive prolonged pelvic floor exercises on urinary continence recovery after bladder neck-sparing radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective controlled randomized trial[J]. Neurourol Urodyn, 2007, 26(7): 985-989. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20442. [16] ANDERSON C A, OMAR M I, CAMPBELL S E, et al. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence[J]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015, 1(1): CD001843. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001843.pub5.
下载: