Sexual medicine reviews · 2018
A User's Guide for Surgery Involving the Artificial Urinary Sphincter.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Chouhan Jyoti D, Terlecki Ryan P
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has long been regarded as the gold standard for surgical correction of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Despite impressive rates of initial success for restoration of continence, durability may wane to the point of considering revision surgery.
AIM: To provide a review of existing data as well as personal experience regarding patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative troubleshooting for the AUS.
METHODS: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature was performed to identify relevant and contemporary articles regarding perioperative and long-term management of the AUS. Additional input is presented based on clinical experience of the senior author.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measures are durability, patient satisfaction, mechanical failure, and urethral erosion.
RESULTS: In addition to a thorough history and examination, preoperative screening should include office cystoscopy to rule out bladder neck contracture in patients with a history of radical prostatectomy. Perineal cuff placement appears superior to alternative approaches. Prior radiation and use of the 3.5-cm cuff are risk factors for future erosion. Newer findings suggest that subsequent recurrence of SUI may be due to restrictive encapsulation, rather than true atrophy, with implications for revision surgery.
CONCLUSION: The AUS remains an excellent option for surgical correction of moderate to severe male SUI. Detailed preoperative evaluation and patient selection are critical. The challenge of downstream recurrent SUI after AUS can be effectively managed for most patients with a structured approach. Chouhan JD, Terlecki RP. A User's Guide for Surgery Involving the Artificial Urinary Sphincter. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:167-177.
AIM: To provide a review of existing data as well as personal experience regarding patient selection, surgical technique, and postoperative troubleshooting for the AUS.
METHODS: A systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature was performed to identify relevant and contemporary articles regarding perioperative and long-term management of the AUS. Additional input is presented based on clinical experience of the senior author.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome measures are durability, patient satisfaction, mechanical failure, and urethral erosion.
RESULTS: In addition to a thorough history and examination, preoperative screening should include office cystoscopy to rule out bladder neck contracture in patients with a history of radical prostatectomy. Perineal cuff placement appears superior to alternative approaches. Prior radiation and use of the 3.5-cm cuff are risk factors for future erosion. Newer findings suggest that subsequent recurrence of SUI may be due to restrictive encapsulation, rather than true atrophy, with implications for revision surgery.
CONCLUSION: The AUS remains an excellent option for surgical correction of moderate to severe male SUI. Detailed preoperative evaluation and patient selection are critical. The challenge of downstream recurrent SUI after AUS can be effectively managed for most patients with a structured approach. Chouhan JD, Terlecki RP. A User's Guide for Surgery Involving the Artificial Urinary Sphincter. Sex Med Rev 2019;7:167-177.