Progres en urologie : journal de l'Association francaise d'urologie et de la Societe francaise d'urologie · 2009
[Urinary incontinence following open prostatectomy or laparoscopy for local prostate cancer. A review of relevant literature].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Simonin O, Savoie P-H, Serment G, Bladou F, Karsenty G
Аннотация
AIM: Evaluate urinary continence after radical prostatectomy.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Recent series about urinary continence were studied.
RESULTS: In seven articles analyzed, continence fluctuated between 63.6 and 91.9%. Evaluation benchmarks were depending on study. Unlike self-questionnaires, objective criteria (pad test) should be more reliable. Carcinologic prognostic factors were not implicated directly. The most frequently preoperative risk factors of incontinence were: age, BMI. Peroperative parameters, attesting of surgical difficulties could have a functional impact. Bladder neck preservation could affect the recovery velocity but not functional results. Length of catheterization and lack of urinary rehabilitation could be influent. The mean of continence evaluation after radical prostatectomy was different for each study.
CONCLUSION: Comparability was difficult because operative technique, group's features and mean of functional evaluation were different from study to study. Several risk factors were found but without consensus. It would be necessary to separate carcinologic and functional risk factors.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Recent series about urinary continence were studied.
RESULTS: In seven articles analyzed, continence fluctuated between 63.6 and 91.9%. Evaluation benchmarks were depending on study. Unlike self-questionnaires, objective criteria (pad test) should be more reliable. Carcinologic prognostic factors were not implicated directly. The most frequently preoperative risk factors of incontinence were: age, BMI. Peroperative parameters, attesting of surgical difficulties could have a functional impact. Bladder neck preservation could affect the recovery velocity but not functional results. Length of catheterization and lack of urinary rehabilitation could be influent. The mean of continence evaluation after radical prostatectomy was different for each study.
CONCLUSION: Comparability was difficult because operative technique, group's features and mean of functional evaluation were different from study to study. Several risk factors were found but without consensus. It would be necessary to separate carcinologic and functional risk factors.