The Canadian journal of urology · 2024
Outcomes of sacral neuromodulation in male patients with overactive bladder, chronic pelvic pain, and fecal incontinence.
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.
Ferreira Roseanne, Alwashmi Emad, Otis-Chapados Samuel, Bhojani Naeem, Zorn Kevin C, Chughtai Bilal, Elterman Dean S
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing body of literature on sacral neuromodulation (SNM) outcomes, research focusing on male patients remains limited and often represented by small cohorts nested within a larger study of mostly women. Herein, we evaluated the outcomes of SNM in a male-only cohort with overactive bladder (OAB), fecal incontinence (FI), chronic bladder pain, and neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 64 male patients who underwent SNM insertion between 2013 and 2021 at a high-volume tertiary center. Indications for SNM therapy included OAB, FI, chronic pelvic pain, and NLUTD. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's and t-test were used in analysis.
RESULTS: The mean age was 57.7 ± 13.4 years, and the most frequent reason for SNM insertion was idiopathic OAB (72%), FI (16%), pelvic pain (11%), and NLUTD (11%). A majority (84%) of men received treatment prior to SNM insertion. 84% reported satisfaction and 92% symptom improvement within the first year, and these improvements persisted beyond 1 year in 73% of patients. Mean follow up was 52.7 ± 21.0 months. The complication rate was 23%, and the need for adjunct treatments was significantly reduced (73% to 27%, p < 0.001). Treatment outcomes did not differ significantly between various indications for SNM therapy or the presence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
CONCLUSION: SNM is an effective and safe procedure for male patients with neurogenic and non-neurogenic OAB, pelvic pain, and FI. Over 70% of patients experienced symptomatic improvement and remained satisfied in the mid to long term follow up. BPH does not seem to hinder treatment outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 64 male patients who underwent SNM insertion between 2013 and 2021 at a high-volume tertiary center. Indications for SNM therapy included OAB, FI, chronic pelvic pain, and NLUTD. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's and t-test were used in analysis.
RESULTS: The mean age was 57.7 ± 13.4 years, and the most frequent reason for SNM insertion was idiopathic OAB (72%), FI (16%), pelvic pain (11%), and NLUTD (11%). A majority (84%) of men received treatment prior to SNM insertion. 84% reported satisfaction and 92% symptom improvement within the first year, and these improvements persisted beyond 1 year in 73% of patients. Mean follow up was 52.7 ± 21.0 months. The complication rate was 23%, and the need for adjunct treatments was significantly reduced (73% to 27%, p < 0.001). Treatment outcomes did not differ significantly between various indications for SNM therapy or the presence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).
CONCLUSION: SNM is an effective and safe procedure for male patients with neurogenic and non-neurogenic OAB, pelvic pain, and FI. Over 70% of patients experienced symptomatic improvement and remained satisfied in the mid to long term follow up. BPH does not seem to hinder treatment outcomes.