European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2004
Urethral device in women with chronic urinary retention: an alternative to self-catheterization?
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Mazouni Chafika, Karsenty Gilles, Bladou Frank, Serment Gérard
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a new urethral prosthesis in the management of chronic urinary retention in women as an alternative to intermittent or indwelling catheterization.
METHODS: Between May 1999 and July 2000, 60 women with chronic urinary retention were prospectively enrolled in the study. The prosthesis was inserted under local anaesthesia. A magnetic control unit activates the urethral device to achieve micturition. Duration of the experience, complications and compliance were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were satisfied with the device. Discontinuation occurred in the first two weeks following implantation in 50% of cases. Bladder migration of the prosthesis occurred in two cases, urinary leakage around the device in four patients, spontaneous expulsion in two women and cystitis was diagnosed in two cases.
CONCLUSION: This intraurethral prosthesis is an attractive, simple technique for use as an alternative to catheterization. Some untoward events and technical complications explained the number of discontinuations.
METHODS: Between May 1999 and July 2000, 60 women with chronic urinary retention were prospectively enrolled in the study. The prosthesis was inserted under local anaesthesia. A magnetic control unit activates the urethral device to achieve micturition. Duration of the experience, complications and compliance were evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were satisfied with the device. Discontinuation occurred in the first two weeks following implantation in 50% of cases. Bladder migration of the prosthesis occurred in two cases, urinary leakage around the device in four patients, spontaneous expulsion in two women and cystitis was diagnosed in two cases.
CONCLUSION: This intraurethral prosthesis is an attractive, simple technique for use as an alternative to catheterization. Some untoward events and technical complications explained the number of discontinuations.