Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and State Inpatient Databases, 2008 to 2010, radical prostatectomy (RP) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 procedure codes and among this cohort, PI was identified also using ICD-9/10 codes. Surgical approaches included minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) versus open (retropubic or perineal) RP. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of surgery for PI. The secondary outcome was the association of PI requiring anti-incontinence surgery with the surgical approach for RP. Results: Among the 13,535 patients initially included in the study (mean age, 63.3 years), 6,932 (51.2%) underwent open RP and 6,603 (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive RP. The overall prevalence of surgical procedures for PI during the observation period among the all patients who had received RP was 3.3%. The rate of PI surgery for patients receiving minimally invasive surgery was higher than that for patients receiving open surgery (4.8% vs. 3.0%; risk difference, 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%–3.4%). The adjusted prevalence of PI surgery for patients who had undergone laparoscopic RP was higher than that for those with retropubic RP (8.6% vs. 3.7%). Conclusions Among patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer, the prevalence of PI surgery is not negligible. Patients undergoing minimally invasive RP had higher adjusted rates for PI surgery compared to open approaches, which was attributed to high rate of PI surgery following laparoscopic approach and low rate of PI surgery following perineal approach. More studies are needed to establish strategies to reduce the rate of PI surgery after RP.

Purpose: This study aimed to examine the prevalence of surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence (PI) following minimally invasive surgery compared to conventional open surgery for prostate cancer. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery and State Inpatient Databases, 2008 to 2010, radical prostatectomy (RP) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9/10 procedure codes and among this cohort, PI was identified also using ICD-9/10 codes. Surgical approaches included minimally invasive (robotic or laparoscopic) versus open (retropubic or perineal) RP. The primary outcome was the overall prevalence of surgery for PI. The secondary outcome was the association of PI requiring anti-incontinence surgery with the surgical approach for RP. Results: Among the 13,535 patients initially included in the study (mean age, 63.3 years), 6,932 (51.2%) underwent open RP and 6,603 (49.8%) underwent minimally invasive RP. The overall prevalence of surgical procedures for PI during the observation period among the all patients who had received RP was 3.3%. The rate of PI surgery for patients receiving minimally invasive surgery was higher than that for patients receiving open surgery (4.8% vs. 3.0%; risk difference, 1.8%; 95% confidence interval, 0.3%–3.4%). The adjusted prevalence of PI surgery for patients who had undergone laparoscopic RP was higher than that for those with retropubic RP (8.6% vs. 3.7%). Conclusions Among patients undergoing RP for prostate cancer, the prevalence of PI surgery is not negligible. Patients undergoing minimally invasive RP had higher adjusted rates for PI surgery compared to open approaches, which was attributed to high rate of PI surgery following laparoscopic approach and low rate of PI surgery following perineal approach. More studies are needed to establish strategies to reduce the rate of PI surgery after RP.