The Journal of urology · 2009
Outpatient perineal sling in adolescent boys with neurogenic incontinence.
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.
Dean Gregory E, Kunkle David A
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Management for urinary incontinence in boys with sphincteric incompetence secondary to a neurogenic etiology is a challenge. Minimally invasive approaches have inconsistent efficacy and may require multiple treatments. Open bladder neck reconstruction requires inpatient hospitalizations and can be associated with a high complication rate. To overcome some of these shortcomings we placed a polypropylene male perineal sling in male adolescents with neurogenic sphincteric incontinence. We retrospectively reviewed the outcome in our initial 6 patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients 14 to 20 years old underwent placement of a polypropylene male perineal sling on an outpatient basis. Followup was 27 to 39 months (median 33). All patients had a history of myelomeningocele and underwent urodynamics showing normal compliance, adequate capacity and sphincteric incompetence. A suburethral sling was placed on an outpatient basis through a small perineal incision. Sling tension was adjusted for maximal urethral compression while still permitting uncomplicated urethral catheter passage.
RESULTS: All 6 patients reported immediate complete continence after sling placement. Two slings were removed after local infection developed and 1 was replaced. Another sling required revision secondary to incomplete bone anchor fixation. No patients had urethral erosion. All 5 patients with a sling currently in place were fully continent on intermittent catheterization every 3 hours and they reported excellent satisfaction with the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective study suggests that the male urethral sling may be an outpatient option for neurogenic incontinence secondary to sphincteric incompetence. Long-term followup in our initial 6 patients shows encouraging durability. Continued study is required to determine strategies that might decrease the complication rate of this approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six patients 14 to 20 years old underwent placement of a polypropylene male perineal sling on an outpatient basis. Followup was 27 to 39 months (median 33). All patients had a history of myelomeningocele and underwent urodynamics showing normal compliance, adequate capacity and sphincteric incompetence. A suburethral sling was placed on an outpatient basis through a small perineal incision. Sling tension was adjusted for maximal urethral compression while still permitting uncomplicated urethral catheter passage.
RESULTS: All 6 patients reported immediate complete continence after sling placement. Two slings were removed after local infection developed and 1 was replaced. Another sling required revision secondary to incomplete bone anchor fixation. No patients had urethral erosion. All 5 patients with a sling currently in place were fully continent on intermittent catheterization every 3 hours and they reported excellent satisfaction with the procedure.
CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective study suggests that the male urethral sling may be an outpatient option for neurogenic incontinence secondary to sphincteric incompetence. Long-term followup in our initial 6 patients shows encouraging durability. Continued study is required to determine strategies that might decrease the complication rate of this approach.