BJU international · 2010
Mid-term evaluation of the transobturator male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: focus on prognostic factors.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Cornu Jean-Nicolas, Sèbe Philippe, Ciofu Calin, Peyrat Laurence, Cussenot Olivier, Haab Francois
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: • To assess clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up and determine preoperative factors associated with the failure of the Advance(TM) male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A prospective evaluation was conducted of 136 consecutive patients implanted with the Advance(TM) male sling for mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. • Patients were preoperatively evaluated using medical history, ASA score, urodynamics, 24-h pad test and pad usage. • The clinical outcome was evaluated according to pad use and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale and by assessment of side effects. 'Cure' was defined as no pad usage and 'improvement' as a decrease in pad use by >50%. • Factors related to functional outcome were studied by univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: • After a mean ± SD (range) follow-up of 21 ± 6 (12-36) months, 62% of patients were cured, 16% improved and 22% not improved. • Failure (no cure or improvement) was associated with previous urethral stricture surgery (P= 0.013) and a 24-h pad-test >200 g/day (P= 0.026), and there was a trend for an association with previous radiation therapy (P= 0.053). • Age, learning curve and type of prostatectomy did not affect the results. • Immediate postoperative complications were limited to two cases of dysuria, one case of perineal haematoma and two cases of perineal paresthesia. During follow-up, 10% of patients had perineal pain and 14% of patients had mild dysuria. None required surgical management.
CONCLUSION: • The results of the present study, with a follow-up of up to 3 years, confirm that the Advance(TM) male sling is an efficient treatment for PPI. However, particular attention should be given to the preoperative data associated with failure.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: • A prospective evaluation was conducted of 136 consecutive patients implanted with the Advance(TM) male sling for mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. • Patients were preoperatively evaluated using medical history, ASA score, urodynamics, 24-h pad test and pad usage. • The clinical outcome was evaluated according to pad use and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale and by assessment of side effects. 'Cure' was defined as no pad usage and 'improvement' as a decrease in pad use by >50%. • Factors related to functional outcome were studied by univariate and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: • After a mean ± SD (range) follow-up of 21 ± 6 (12-36) months, 62% of patients were cured, 16% improved and 22% not improved. • Failure (no cure or improvement) was associated with previous urethral stricture surgery (P= 0.013) and a 24-h pad-test >200 g/day (P= 0.026), and there was a trend for an association with previous radiation therapy (P= 0.053). • Age, learning curve and type of prostatectomy did not affect the results. • Immediate postoperative complications were limited to two cases of dysuria, one case of perineal haematoma and two cases of perineal paresthesia. During follow-up, 10% of patients had perineal pain and 14% of patients had mild dysuria. None required surgical management.
CONCLUSION: • The results of the present study, with a follow-up of up to 3 years, confirm that the Advance(TM) male sling is an efficient treatment for PPI. However, particular attention should be given to the preoperative data associated with failure.