IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i13p6891-d583241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data

Author

Listed:
  • Dong-Ho Mun

    (Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
    Dong-Ho Mun and Lin Yang contributed equally to this paper.)

  • Lin Yang

    (Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
    Departments of Oncology and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
    Dong-Ho Mun and Lin Yang contributed equally to this paper.)

  • Shahrokh F. Shariat

    (Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
    Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119435 Moscow, Russia
    Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, USA
    Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX 75390, USA)

  • Sylvia Reitter-Pfoertner

    (Competence Center Integrated Care, c/o Austrian Health Insurance Fund, 1100 Vienna, Austria)

  • Gerald Gredinger

    (Competence Center Integrated Care, c/o Austrian Health Insurance Fund, 1100 Vienna, Austria)

  • Thomas Waldhoer

    (Center for Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria)

Abstract

Purpose: to quantify and compare pre- and post-surgical incontinence pad use between men treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa) and cancer-free controls, using population-based Austrian insurance claims data. Methods: Men who underwent RP for treating PCa between 2013–2015 were identified. Cancer-free men ≥45 years with and without benign prostate hyperplasia (BPH) were used as controls. Longitudinal data on ICD-diagnoses, type of surgery, prescribed incontinence pads, and hospitals’ surgery volumes were aggregated between 2011–2018 to capture pre- and up to three years post-RP follow-up. Monthly rates of pad use were calculated and compared between RP types and cancer-free controls. Results: A total of 6248 RP patients, 7158 cancer-free men with BPH, and 50,257 cancer-free men without BPH were analyzed. Comparing to pre-RP (0.03, 95%CI: 0.02–0.05), RP resulted in significantly higher rates of prescribed pads (at 3 months: 12.61, 95%CI: 11.59–13.65; 12 months: 6.71, 95%CI: 6.10–7.34; 36 months: 4.91, 95%CI: 3.76–4.62). These rates were also higher than those for cancer free controls (with BPH:0.06, 95%CI: 0.04–0.09; without BPH:0.12, 95%CI: 0.10–0.14). The rate of prescribed pads after surgery continued to decline over time and remained higher among men who underwent minimally invasive RP compared to those who underwent an open procedure. Conclusion: Despite progress in surgical techniques, post-RP incontinence remains a prevalent adverse event. The rate of pad usage steadily improved over the first three years post RP. The rate of patients with incontinence needing pads was higher among those who were treated minimally invasive compared to open approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong-Ho Mun & Lin Yang & Shahrokh F. Shariat & Sylvia Reitter-Pfoertner & Gerald Gredinger & Thomas Waldhoer, 2021. "Difference in Incontinence Pad Use between Patients after Radical Prostatectomy and Cancer-Free Population with Subgroup Analysis for Open vs. Minimally Invasive Radical Prostatectomy: A Descriptive A," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-9, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6891-:d:583241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6891/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/13/6891/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:13:p:6891-:d:583241. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.