Urology · 2023
Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of Lateral Retroperitoneal Pressure Regulating Balloon Placement During Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Markarian Emily, Boyd Stuart D, Ginsberg David, Loh-Doyle Jeffrey
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To describe immediate and long-term outcomes of pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in male patients receiving an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS).
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent primary AUS placement between 2006 and 2021. All patients had the PRB placed in the LR during the study period. Intraoperative complications during PRB placement, exchange, or removal, and indications for PRB revision, such as infection, erosion, or mechanical failures were analyzed.
RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary implantation with no intraoperative complications including no incidents of bowel or vascular injury during PRB placement. In addition, there were no instances of intraoperative injury during PRB removal (with or without PRB replacement). After mean follow-up of 54.8months (range: 1-181months), 9 patients (1.7%) developed a reservoir-specific complication with infection (5 patients, 0.9%) being the most common issue found. The second most common type or reservoir issue was a palpable or herniated reservoir. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who herniated their reservoirs and one patient with a nonbothersome, but palpable reservoir. Lastly, there were 2 incidents (0.4%) of mechanical failure caused by a leak in the PRB.
CONCLUSION: Due to the ease and safety of placing and removing PRBs from this location and exceedingly low rates of PRB-related complications in long-term follow-up, the LR should be considered as an ideal location for PRB placement in male patients receiving an AUS.
METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent primary AUS placement between 2006 and 2021. All patients had the PRB placed in the LR during the study period. Intraoperative complications during PRB placement, exchange, or removal, and indications for PRB revision, such as infection, erosion, or mechanical failures were analyzed.
RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary implantation with no intraoperative complications including no incidents of bowel or vascular injury during PRB placement. In addition, there were no instances of intraoperative injury during PRB removal (with or without PRB replacement). After mean follow-up of 54.8months (range: 1-181months), 9 patients (1.7%) developed a reservoir-specific complication with infection (5 patients, 0.9%) being the most common issue found. The second most common type or reservoir issue was a palpable or herniated reservoir. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who herniated their reservoirs and one patient with a nonbothersome, but palpable reservoir. Lastly, there were 2 incidents (0.4%) of mechanical failure caused by a leak in the PRB.
CONCLUSION: Due to the ease and safety of placing and removing PRBs from this location and exceedingly low rates of PRB-related complications in long-term follow-up, the LR should be considered as an ideal location for PRB placement in male patients receiving an AUS.