BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2006
Lower urinary tract injuries after transobturator tape insertion by different routes: a large retrospective study.
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.
Abdel-Fattah M, Ramsay I, Pringle S
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To identify the rate of, and risk factors for, lower urinary tract (LUT) injuries associated with the transobturator tension-free vaginal tape (TOT) procedure.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral urogynaecology centre.
POPULATION: 390 women who underwent transobturator suburethral tapes for management of urodynamic stress incontinence between July 2002 and January 2006.
METHODS: Early cases were identified from theatre records and a case note review performed. From May 2005 (n = 94), data from an ongoing prospective audit were reviewed. Data for LUT injuries with TOT procedures were examined and routes of insertion were compared using Fischer's exact test.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of LUT injuries associated with the TOT procedures. Assessment of factors increasing risk of LUT injury, and comparison of the 'outside-in' and 'inside-out' techniques.
RESULTS: 241 women underwent TOT outside-in technique and 148 of them underwent inside-out technique. Four LUT injuries occurred (1%): two urethral injuries (0.5%) and two bladder injuries (0.5%). All LUT injuries occurred in the outside-in group, although this difference did not reach significance (P = 0.146). Bladder injuries occurred in women who underwent concomitant vaginal surgery, while urethral injuries occurred in women undergoing secondary procedures.
CONCLUSION: LUT injury is an uncommon complication of the TOT procedures, and in our hands only occurred with the outside-in technique. Intraoperative cystoscopy should be considered only in selected cases.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Tertiary referral urogynaecology centre.
POPULATION: 390 women who underwent transobturator suburethral tapes for management of urodynamic stress incontinence between July 2002 and January 2006.
METHODS: Early cases were identified from theatre records and a case note review performed. From May 2005 (n = 94), data from an ongoing prospective audit were reviewed. Data for LUT injuries with TOT procedures were examined and routes of insertion were compared using Fischer's exact test.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of LUT injuries associated with the TOT procedures. Assessment of factors increasing risk of LUT injury, and comparison of the 'outside-in' and 'inside-out' techniques.
RESULTS: 241 women underwent TOT outside-in technique and 148 of them underwent inside-out technique. Four LUT injuries occurred (1%): two urethral injuries (0.5%) and two bladder injuries (0.5%). All LUT injuries occurred in the outside-in group, although this difference did not reach significance (P = 0.146). Bladder injuries occurred in women who underwent concomitant vaginal surgery, while urethral injuries occurred in women undergoing secondary procedures.
CONCLUSION: LUT injury is an uncommon complication of the TOT procedures, and in our hands only occurred with the outside-in technique. Intraoperative cystoscopy should be considered only in selected cases.