World journal of urology · 2019
Determinants and prognostic value of post-operative maximum urethral closure pressure after artificial urinary sphincter in men.
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.
Bentellis Imad, El-Akri Mehdi, Hascoet Juliette, Alimi Quentin, Mathieu Romain, Vincendeau Sébastien, Kerdraon Jacques, Voiry Caroline, Manunta Andrea, Peyronnet Benoit
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the determinants and prognostic value of post-operative maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) after AUS implantation in male patients.
METHODS: The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2008 and 2018 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively for an exploratory study. A post-operative urethral profilometry was performed systematically as part of routine daily practice over the study period to assess the post-operative MUCP with the AUS consecutively closed (c-MUCP) and opened (o-MUCP). The difference between c-MUCP and the manufacturer's theoretical pressure objective determined by the pressure regulating balloon (PRB) was calculated (diff-th-MUCP). The primary endpoint was social continence at 3 months defined as 0-1 protection/day.
RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. The median age was 71 years, and the median follow-up was 50 months. The etiology of incontinence was radical prostatectomy in 84% of cases, and endoscopic prostate surgery in 6.6% of patients. There were 74.4% of patients who were socially continent at 3 months. The c-MCUP was significantly higher in the continent group (53 [42.2, 60.2] vs 62 [58, 70] p = 0.02). The diff-th-MUCP did not differ significantly between the two groups (18 [0, 23] vs 1 [- 2, 7.7] p = 0.29). The c-MUCP was not statistically associated with the risk of revision and/or explantation.
CONCLUSION: The MUCP after AUS implantation in male patients often differs from the manufacturer's pressure objective. The postoperative c-MUCP might be significantly associated with functional outcomes suggesting that it might be a valuable tool for treatment decision-making. This should be confirmed by larger studies.
METHODS: The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2008 and 2018 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively for an exploratory study. A post-operative urethral profilometry was performed systematically as part of routine daily practice over the study period to assess the post-operative MUCP with the AUS consecutively closed (c-MUCP) and opened (o-MUCP). The difference between c-MUCP and the manufacturer's theoretical pressure objective determined by the pressure regulating balloon (PRB) was calculated (diff-th-MUCP). The primary endpoint was social continence at 3 months defined as 0-1 protection/day.
RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. The median age was 71 years, and the median follow-up was 50 months. The etiology of incontinence was radical prostatectomy in 84% of cases, and endoscopic prostate surgery in 6.6% of patients. There were 74.4% of patients who were socially continent at 3 months. The c-MCUP was significantly higher in the continent group (53 [42.2, 60.2] vs 62 [58, 70] p = 0.02). The diff-th-MUCP did not differ significantly between the two groups (18 [0, 23] vs 1 [- 2, 7.7] p = 0.29). The c-MUCP was not statistically associated with the risk of revision and/or explantation.
CONCLUSION: The MUCP after AUS implantation in male patients often differs from the manufacturer's pressure objective. The postoperative c-MUCP might be significantly associated with functional outcomes suggesting that it might be a valuable tool for treatment decision-making. This should be confirmed by larger studies.