MedElevator
Войти в исследования In vivo (Athens, Greece) · 2019
Comparison of Solifenacin and Bilateral Apical Fixation in the Treatment of Mixed and Urgency Urinary Incontinence in Women: URGE 1 Study, A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Клиническое исследование I фазыСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ludwig Sebastian, Becker Ingrid, Mallmann Peter, Jäger Wolfram
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aetiology of urgency urinary incontinence is a matter of debate. Current treatment options are based on the hypothesis of a neurological disorder of bladder innervation. However, it has also been hypothesised that one main cause is the reduced function of the bladder-holding apparatus, that is, insufficient suspension of the vesico-urethral junction. This study compared the effects of surgical apical vaginal elevation with those of solifenacin on urgency urinary incontinence in women.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with mixed and urgency urinary incontinence were randomised to either an established pharmacological arm (10 mg/day solifenacin) or the surgical arm (bilateral uterosacral ligament replacement, cervicosacropexy, CESA; or vaginosacropexy, VASA. Clinical and objective outcomes were assessed at 4 months after each type of intervention.
RESULTS: The study was terminated early; 55 patients were operated on and 41 patients received pharmacological treatment. After surgical treatment, 23 patients (42%, 95% confidence intervaI=29-55%) became continent compared to four patients (10%, 95% confidence intervaI=1-19%) during solifenacin treatment.
CONCLUSION: Compared to pharmacological treatment, the surgical repair of the apical vaginal end restored urinary continence in significantly more patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with mixed and urgency urinary incontinence were randomised to either an established pharmacological arm (10 mg/day solifenacin) or the surgical arm (bilateral uterosacral ligament replacement, cervicosacropexy, CESA; or vaginosacropexy, VASA. Clinical and objective outcomes were assessed at 4 months after each type of intervention.
RESULTS: The study was terminated early; 55 patients were operated on and 41 patients received pharmacological treatment. After surgical treatment, 23 patients (42%, 95% confidence intervaI=29-55%) became continent compared to four patients (10%, 95% confidence intervaI=1-19%) during solifenacin treatment.
CONCLUSION: Compared to pharmacological treatment, the surgical repair of the apical vaginal end restored urinary continence in significantly more patients.