Next Article in Journal
Nurse-Coordinated Blood Pressure Telemonitoring for Urban Hypertensive Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Sleep Quality and Performance in Professional Athletes Fasting during the Month of Ramadan
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

1
Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
2
Department of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB T2S 3C3, Canada
3
Departments of Oncology and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
4
Institute for Urology and Reproductive Health, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, 119435 Moscow, Russia
5
Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 10065, USA
6
Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX 75390, USA
7
Karl Landsteiner Institute of Urology and Andrology, 3100 St. Poelten, Austria
8
Department of Urology, Second Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, 150 06 Prague, Czech Republic
9
Department of Special Surgery, Division of Urology, Jordan University Hospital, The University of Jordan, Amman 2V89+CR, Jordan
10
European Association of Urology Research Foundation, NL-6803 AA Arnhem, The Netherlands
11
Competence Center Integrated Care, c/o Austrian Health Insurance Fund, 1100 Vienna, Austria
12
Center for Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dong-Ho Mun and Lin Yang contributed equally to this paper.
Academic Editor: Paul B. Tchounwou
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(13), 6891; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18136891
Received: 3 June 2021 / Revised: 20 June 2021 / Accepted: 22 June 2021 / Published: 27 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Utility of Administrative Data in Health Research)
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: insurance data; laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; open radical prostatectomy; robotic radical prostatectomy; urinary incontinence insurance data; laparoscopic radical prostatectomy; open radical prostatectomy; robotic radical prostatectomy; urinary incontinence
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mun, D.-H.; Yang, L.; Shariat, S.F.; Reitter-Pfoertner, S.; Gredinger, G.; Waldhoer, T. 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. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6891. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18136891

AMA Style

Mun D-H, Yang L, Shariat SF, Reitter-Pfoertner S, Gredinger G, Waldhoer T. 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. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):6891. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18136891

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mun, Dong-Ho, Lin Yang, Shahrokh F. Shariat, Sylvia Reitter-Pfoertner, Gerald Gredinger, and 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 Analysis of Insurance Claims-Based Data" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 6891. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph18136891

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop