Urology · 2015
Foley or Fix: A Comparative Analysis of Reparative Procedures at the Time of Explantation of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Cuff Erosion.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Chertack Nathan, Chaparala Hemant, Angermeier Kenneth W, Montague Drogo K, Wood Hadley M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To examine artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuff erosion intraoperative management methods: Foley catheter placement, abbreviated urethroplasty (AU), or mobilization with primary urethral anastomosis (PA). We reviewed these options to compare postoperative complications and probability of AUS reimplantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients treated for AUS cuff erosion from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. We divided patients into 3 groups based on intraoperative management of the urethra: Foley only, AU, or PA. Patient characteristics, operative times, outcomes, complications, and reimplantation factors were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with a median age of 77 years (72-83) were treated for AUS cuff erosion. Fifty-two underwent Foley placement, 8 AU, and 15 PA. Mean follow-up was 13 months (0-106). Severe erosions were more common in the PA group than Foley or AU (100% vs 37%, 100% vs 38%, P <.001, P <.001, respectively). Severe erosions treated with Foley were more likely to develop strictures than mild erosions (38% vs 5%, P = .009). Tandem cuff patients treated with Foley were more likely to develop diverticuli than single cuff patients (33% vs 4%, P = .016). There was no difference in probability of reimplantation between PA and Foley or AU (63% vs 69%, 63% vs 33%, P = .748, P = .438, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Foley catheter placement alone may represent suboptimal management for severe or tandem cuff erosions due to increased risk of urethral complications. Urethral defect management should be determined at the time of explantation by individual patient characteristics and surgeon experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients treated for AUS cuff erosion from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. We divided patients into 3 groups based on intraoperative management of the urethra: Foley only, AU, or PA. Patient characteristics, operative times, outcomes, complications, and reimplantation factors were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with a median age of 77 years (72-83) were treated for AUS cuff erosion. Fifty-two underwent Foley placement, 8 AU, and 15 PA. Mean follow-up was 13 months (0-106). Severe erosions were more common in the PA group than Foley or AU (100% vs 37%, 100% vs 38%, P <.001, P <.001, respectively). Severe erosions treated with Foley were more likely to develop strictures than mild erosions (38% vs 5%, P = .009). Tandem cuff patients treated with Foley were more likely to develop diverticuli than single cuff patients (33% vs 4%, P = .016). There was no difference in probability of reimplantation between PA and Foley or AU (63% vs 69%, 63% vs 33%, P = .748, P = .438, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Foley catheter placement alone may represent suboptimal management for severe or tandem cuff erosions due to increased risk of urethral complications. Urethral defect management should be determined at the time of explantation by individual patient characteristics and surgeon experience.