The Journal of urology · 2002
Polypropylene mesh tape for stress urinary incontinence: complications of urethral erosion and outlet obstruction.
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.
Sweat Susan D, Itano Nancy B, Clemens J Quentin, Bushman Wade, Gruenenfelder Jennifer, McGuire Edward J, Lightner Deborah J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Gynecare tension-free vaginal tape (Ethicon, Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey) is a propylene mesh tape recently introduced in the United States as minimally invasive treatment for stress urinary incontinence. We report the combined experience at 3 tertiary care institutions with graft erosion and bladder outlet obstruction after procedures performed elsewhere.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 5 patients with complications who presented to 1 of 3 institutions after polypropylene mesh tape placement. All pertinent information was obtained from the medical records and the operating surgeon at the referring institution.
RESULTS: Treatment was required in 2 patients with urethral erosion, 1 with vaginal and bladder erosion, and 2 with bladder outlet obstruction. Common presenting symptoms included urge, urge incontinence and gross hematuria. Cystoscopy showed polypropylene graft erosion at the urethra or through the bladder wall. Each patient required explantation of the polypropylene mesh tape and further surgery to restore continence. The graft was divided transvaginally in the 2 patients presenting with outlet obstruction. Urge incontinence resolved and they returned to complete spontaneous voiding.
CONCLUSIONS: High clinical suspicion is necessary when evaluating patients presenting with urinary symptoms after polypropylene mesh tape placement. Bladder outlet obstruction and possible graft erosion should be considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of 5 patients with complications who presented to 1 of 3 institutions after polypropylene mesh tape placement. All pertinent information was obtained from the medical records and the operating surgeon at the referring institution.
RESULTS: Treatment was required in 2 patients with urethral erosion, 1 with vaginal and bladder erosion, and 2 with bladder outlet obstruction. Common presenting symptoms included urge, urge incontinence and gross hematuria. Cystoscopy showed polypropylene graft erosion at the urethra or through the bladder wall. Each patient required explantation of the polypropylene mesh tape and further surgery to restore continence. The graft was divided transvaginally in the 2 patients presenting with outlet obstruction. Urge incontinence resolved and they returned to complete spontaneous voiding.
CONCLUSIONS: High clinical suspicion is necessary when evaluating patients presenting with urinary symptoms after polypropylene mesh tape placement. Bladder outlet obstruction and possible graft erosion should be considered.