Visual Analogue Scale and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 in the Evaluation of Urinary Continence Recovery After Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy, a Single-Center Prospective Registered Study

Jaakko Valli; Henry Haapiainen; Teemu J Murtola; Heini Huhtala; Antti Kaipia; Mika Raitanen

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2023.04.021

Visual Analogue Scale and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-26 in the Evaluation of Urinary Continence Recovery After Three-Dimensional Laparoscopic Radical Prostatectomy, a Single-Center Prospective Registered Study

Urology. 2023 Jul:177:103-108. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.04.021. Epub 2023 May 3.

Authors

Jaakko Valli¹, Henry Haapiainen², Teemu J Murtola³, Heini Huhtala⁴, Antti Kaipia⁵, Mika Raitanen⁶

Affiliations

¹ Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Department of Urology, Seinäjoki, Finland; TAYS Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Tampere, Finland. Electronic address: jaakko.valli@live.com.
² Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Department of Urology, Seinäjoki, Finland.
³ TAYS Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Tampere, Finland; Tampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.
⁴ Faculty of Social Sciences, Biostatistics Group, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
⁵ TAYS Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Tampere, Finland.
⁶ Seinäjoki Central Hospital, Department of Urology, Seinäjoki, Finland; TAYS Cancer Center, Department of Urology, Tampere, Finland; Tampere University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere, Finland.

PMID: 37146729
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2023.04.021

Abstract

Objective: To assess the correlation between the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 in the evaluation of urinary continence (UC) recovery after 3-dimensional laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (3D-LRP).

Methods: 105 men underwent 3D-LRP in Seinäjoki Central Hospital Finland between November 2018 and February 2021. VAS forms and EPIC-26 questionnaires were used to assess UC preoperatively and at 6 weeks, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 15-, 18-, 21-, and 24 months postoperatively. On the VAS form, the patient put a mark on the 10 cm long horizontal line in place, which described his experienced degree of UC (0 cm; fully incontinent-10 cm; fully continent). The scores for the urinary incontinence domain of EPIC-26 (UI-EPIC-26) were calculated and transformed to a scale of 0-100. Spearman´s rank correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between the VAS and UI-EPIC-26.

Results: A total of 915 VAS forms and 909 EPIC-26 questionnaires were evaluable. UC improved significantly during the first year but not after that. The medians for UI-EPIC-26 and VAS were 50.8 (0-100) and 7.2 cm (0-10 cm) at 3 months, 76.8 (14.5-100) and 8.7 cm (1.7-10 cm) at 12 months and 79.6 (8.25-100) and 9.0 cm (2.7-10 cm) at 24 months. The correlation coefficient (95% confidence interval) between VAS and UI-EPIC-26 preoperatively, at 12 months and at 24 months was 0.639 (0.505-0.743), 0.807 (0.716-0.871), and 0.831 (0.735-0.894), respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion: The VAS can be utilized as an easy-to-use alternative to the EPIC-26 when evaluating UC recovery after 3D-LRP.

MeSH terms

Humans
Laparoscopy* / methods
Male
Prospective Studies
Prostatectomy / methods
Prostatic Neoplasms* / surgery
Visual Analog Scale