What is the impact of post‐radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence on everyday quality of life? Linking Pad usage and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short‐Form (ICIQ‐SF) for a COMBined definition (PICOMB definition)

Aims To identify the definition for urinary continence (UC) after radical prostatectomy (RP) which reflects best patients' perception of quality of life (QoL). Methods Continence was prospectively assessed in 634 patients, 12 months after RP using the International Consultation on Incontinence...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Neurourology and urodynamics 2021-03, Vol.40 (3), p.840-847
Hauptverfasser: García Cortés, Ángel, Colombás Vives, Juan, Gutiérrez Castañé, Cristina, Chiva San Román, Santiago, Doménech López, Pablo, Ancizu Marckert, Francisco J., Hevia Suárez, Mateo, Merino Narro, Imanol, Velis Campillo, José M., Guillén Grima, Francisco, Torres Roca, Marcos, Diez‐Caballero y Alonso, Fernando, Rosell Costa, David, Villacampa Aubá, Felipe, Ramón de Fata Chillón, Fernando, Andrés Boville, Guillermo, Barbas Bernardos, Guillermo, Miñana López, Bernardino, Robles García, José E., Pascual Piédrola, Juan I.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aims To identify the definition for urinary continence (UC) after radical prostatectomy (RP) which reflects best patients' perception of quality of life (QoL). Methods Continence was prospectively assessed in 634 patients, 12 months after RP using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short‐Form (ICIQ‐SF) and the number of pads employed in a 24‐hour period (pad usage). We used the one‐way ANOVA technique with posthoc pairwise comparisons according to Scheffé's method (homogeneous subsets) for assessing the degree of QoL deficit related to urinary incontinence (UI). Results The continence prevalence is 64.4%, 74.1%, 88.3%, and 35.8% using “0 pads,” “1 safety pad,” “1 pad,” and “ICIQ score 0” definitions, respectively. Pad usage is moderately strongly associated with ICIQ 1, 2, and 3 (ρ = 0.744, 0.677, and 0.711, respectively; p 
ISSN:0733-2467
1520-6777
DOI:10.1002/nau.24631