International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2022
Outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus: A subgroup analysis.
Наблюдательное исследованиеМногоцентровое 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.
Kaiho Yasuhiro, Masuda Hitoshi, Takei Mineo, Hirayama Takahiro, Kitta Takeya, Yokoyama Minato, Kawamorita Naoki, Mitsui Takahiko, Nakagawa Haruo, Iwamura Masatsugu, Arai Yoichi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the surgical and quality-of-life outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Subanalyses were performed using the same population as that in our previous multicenter, prospective, observational study.
METHODS: A total of 135 male patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation were divided into two groups: those with and without DM. The revision-free rates, that is, the percentage of patients who did not require revision surgery, were compared between patients with and without DM. The number of urinary pads required per day, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form, and King's Health Questionnaire were used to compare the continence status and quality of life (QOL) between the two groups preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 12 months after surgery.
RESULTS: Revision-free rates were significantly lower in the DM group (83.9%, 77.4%, and 67.8% at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation, respectively) than in the non-DM group (95.5%, 92.5%, and 85.5% at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation, respectively). Both continence status and QOL, assessed by questionnaires, markedly improved after surgery in patients with and without DM.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the durability of the artificial urinary sphincters, patients with DM can obtain as much benefit from artificial urinary sphincter implantation regarding continence and quality-of-life improvement as patients without DM. Therefore, DM was not considered a comorbidity that contraindicated artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Additional large-scale studies are required to verify our findings.
METHODS: A total of 135 male patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation were divided into two groups: those with and without DM. The revision-free rates, that is, the percentage of patients who did not require revision surgery, were compared between patients with and without DM. The number of urinary pads required per day, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form, and King's Health Questionnaire were used to compare the continence status and quality of life (QOL) between the two groups preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 12 months after surgery.
RESULTS: Revision-free rates were significantly lower in the DM group (83.9%, 77.4%, and 67.8% at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation, respectively) than in the non-DM group (95.5%, 92.5%, and 85.5% at 1, 2, and 3 years after implantation, respectively). Both continence status and QOL, assessed by questionnaires, markedly improved after surgery in patients with and without DM.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite differences in the durability of the artificial urinary sphincters, patients with DM can obtain as much benefit from artificial urinary sphincter implantation regarding continence and quality-of-life improvement as patients without DM. Therefore, DM was not considered a comorbidity that contraindicated artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Additional large-scale studies are required to verify our findings.