BJU international · 2019
Robot-assisted implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter, the AMS-800, via a posterior approach to the bladder neck in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency.
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.
Gondran-Tellier Bastien, Boissier Romain, Baboudjian Michael, Rouy Mathieu, Gaillet Sarah, Lechevallier Eric, Michel Floriane, Karsenty Gilles
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To describe a new technique for robot-assisted AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) bladder neck implantation in women.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical files of patients who underwent robot-assisted AUS implantation between March 2017 and November 2018 at our centre. All of the implantations were performed using a posterior approach to the bladder neck in order to avoid blind dissection and the risk of vaginal and/or bladder injury. This strategy was viewed as an alternative to the anterior robot-assisted implantation recently described. The AUSs were activated 5 weeks after implantation. Patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months, then annually.
RESULTS: Eight patients, with a median age of 64 years, underwent robot-assisted AUS implantation via a posterior approach to the bladder neck. The median preoperative pad weight was 300 g/24 h. The median operating time was 244 min. No peri-operative vaginal and or bladder injuries were observed. At a median of 12 months of follow-up, all the AUSs were functional. Five patients required no protection (62.5%), three had day protection (37.5%), and all said they were satisfied except for one patient (12.5%) who requested treatment for persistent urge incontinence.
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted AUS implantation in women via a posterior approach to the bladder neck is a procedure that is simple, reproducible and safe. The short-term functional results are satisfactory and comparable to those obtained via an open approach. A more long-term comparison of the efficacy and longevity of AUSs implanted using this posterior approach is needed to confirm its benefit compared with the anterior robot-assisted approach and the classic open technique.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed the medical files of patients who underwent robot-assisted AUS implantation between March 2017 and November 2018 at our centre. All of the implantations were performed using a posterior approach to the bladder neck in order to avoid blind dissection and the risk of vaginal and/or bladder injury. This strategy was viewed as an alternative to the anterior robot-assisted implantation recently described. The AUSs were activated 5 weeks after implantation. Patients were followed up at 3, 6 and 12 months, then annually.
RESULTS: Eight patients, with a median age of 64 years, underwent robot-assisted AUS implantation via a posterior approach to the bladder neck. The median preoperative pad weight was 300 g/24 h. The median operating time was 244 min. No peri-operative vaginal and or bladder injuries were observed. At a median of 12 months of follow-up, all the AUSs were functional. Five patients required no protection (62.5%), three had day protection (37.5%), and all said they were satisfied except for one patient (12.5%) who requested treatment for persistent urge incontinence.
CONCLUSION: Robot-assisted AUS implantation in women via a posterior approach to the bladder neck is a procedure that is simple, reproducible and safe. The short-term functional results are satisfactory and comparable to those obtained via an open approach. A more long-term comparison of the efficacy and longevity of AUSs implanted using this posterior approach is needed to confirm its benefit compared with the anterior robot-assisted approach and the classic open technique.