World Journal of Urology

, Volume 36, Issue 8, pp 1247–1253 | Cite as

The impact of time to catheter removal on short-, intermediate- and long-term urinary continence after radical prostatectomy

  • Derya TilkiEmail author
  • Felix Preisser
  • Pierre Karakiewicz
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
  • Markus Graefen
  • Hartwig Huland
  • Felix K. Chun
  • Raisa S. Pompe
Original Article



To assess the impact of prolonged catheterization time on 1-week (short-term), 3-month (intermediate-term) and 1-year (long-term) UC.


Between 2008 and 2015, 6918 men underwent RP by four high-volume surgeons. Exclusion criteria were baseline urinary incontinence (UI) and radiotherapy prior or within 12 months after RP. For the remaining 4111 patients, data on short-, intermediate- and long-term UC were available for 3989, 2490 and 1967 patients, respectively. UC was defined as the use of zero or 1-safety pad/24 h. Time to catheter removal was categorized into  ≤ 7, 8–14 and  ≥ 15 days. To assess the impact of catheterization time on short-, intermediate- and long-term UI, uni- and multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, BMI, prostate volume, pathological tumor stage, Charlson comorbidity index and nerve-sparing technique were performed.


Post-RP UC rates at 1 week for catheterization of  ≤ 7, 8–14 and ≥ 15 days were 31.2, 27.4 and 18.0%. For the same groups, 3-month and 1-year UC rates were 82.7, 79.2 and 74.1% as well as 90.8, 91.6 and 88.2%, respectively. In multivariate logistic regressions, longer catheterization time was associated with worse short- and intermediate UI (OR 15 days: 2.19 and 1.54; p = ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.04). This difference dissipated at 1 year after RP (p > 0.05).


While longer catheterization is associated with worse short- and intermediate-term UC, it has no adverse impact on long-term UC.


Prostate cancer Radical prostatectomy Urinary continence Catheter removal Catheterization 


Author contribution

DT: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. FP: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. PK: protocol/project development, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. SFS: protocol/project development and manuscript writing/editing. MG: protocol/project development, data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing. HH: protocol/project development, data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing. FKC: protocol/project development, data collection or management, and manuscript writing/editing. RSP: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing.


Nothing to disclose. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Statement of human rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Geraerts I, Van Poppel H, Devoogdt N et al (2013) Prospective evaluation of urinary incontinence, voiding symptoms and quality of life after open and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 112:936PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ficarra V, Novara G, Rosen RC et al (2012) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:405CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Palisaar JR, Roghmann F, Brock M et al (2015) Predictors of short-term recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 33:771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gratzke C, Dovey Z, Novara G et al (2016) Early catheter removal after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: surgical technique and outcomes for the aalst technique (ECaRemA study). Eur Urol 69:917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tiguert R, Rigaud J, Fradet Y (2004) Safety and outcome of early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 63:513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lepor H, Nieder AM, Fraimann MC (2001) Early removal of the urinary catheter after radical prostatectomy is both feasible and desirable. Urology 58:425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sedor J, Mulholland SG (1999) Hospital-acquired urinary tract infections associated with the indwelling catheter. Urol Clin North Am 26:821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalton DP, Schaeffer AJ, Garnett JE et al (1989) Radiographic assessment of the vesicourethral anastomosis directing early decatheterization following nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 141:79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun Y, Zeng Q, Zhang Z et al (2011) Decreased urethral mucosal damage and delayed bacterial colonization during short-term urethral catheterization using a novel trefoil urethral catheter profile in rabbits. J Urol 186:1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hatiboglu G, Teber D, Tichy D et al (2016) Predictive factors for immediate continence after radical prostatectomy. World J Urol 34:113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Budaus L, Isbarn H, Schlomm T et al (2009) Current technique of open intrafascial nerve-sparing retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 56:317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schlomm T, Tennstedt P, Huxhold C et al (2012) Neurovascular structure-adjacent frozen-section examination (NeuroSAFE) increases nerve-sparing frequency and reduces positive surgical margins in open and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: experience after 11,069 consecutive patients. Eur Urol 62:333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schlomm T, Heinzer H, Steuber T et al (2011) Full functional-length urethral sphincter preservation during radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 60:320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2005) Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function (“trifecta”). Urology 66:83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS et al (2000) Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA 283:354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Patel R, Lepor H (2003) Removal of urinary catheter on postoperative day 3 or 4 after radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 61:156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nadu A, Salomon L, Hoznek A et al (2001) Early removal of the catheter after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 166:1662CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matsushima M, Miyajima A, Hattori S et al (2015) Comparison of continence outcomes of early catheter removal on postoperative day 2 and 4 after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Urology 15:77CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koch MO, Nayee AH, Sloan J et al (2003) Early catheter removal after radical retropubic prostatectomy: long-term followup. J Urol 169:2170CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cormio L, Di Fino G, Scavone C et al (2016) Prognostic Factors for Anastomotic Urinary Leakage Following Retropubic Radical Prostatectomy and Correlation With Voiding Outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:e3475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derya Tilki
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Felix Preisser
    • 1
    • 3
  • Pierre Karakiewicz
    • 3
  • Shahrokh F. Shariat
    • 4
  • Markus Graefen
    • 1
  • Hartwig Huland
    • 1
  • Felix K. Chun
    • 2
  • Raisa S. Pompe
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Martini-Klinik Prostate Cancer CenterUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity Hospital Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Cancer Prognostics and Health Outcomes UnitUniversity of Montreal Health CenterMontrealCanada
  4. 4.Department of Urology MedicalUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations