The Artificial Urinary Sphincter is Superior to a Secondary Transobturator Male Sling in Cases of a Primary Sling Failure.

Autor:	Ajay D; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. Electronic address: divya.ajay@duke.edu., Zhang H; School of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina., Gupta S; Department of Urology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky., Selph JP; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina., Belsante MJ; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina., Lentz AC; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina., Webster GD; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina., Peterson AC; Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The Journal of urology [J Urol] 2015 Oct; Vol. 194 (4), pp. 1038-42. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 May 09.
DOI:	10.1016/j.juro.2015.04.106
Abstrakt:	Purpose: We compared continence outcomes in patients with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence treated with a salvage artificial urinary sphincter vs a secondary transobturator sling. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients undergoing salvage procedures after sling failure from 2006 to 2012. Postoperative success was defined as the use of 0 or 1 pad, a negative stress test and pad weight less than 8 gm per day. We performed the Wilcoxon test and used a Cox regression model and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Results: A total of 61 men presenting with sling failure were included in study, of whom 32 went directly to an artificial urinary sphincter and 29 received a secondary sling. Of the artificial urinary sphincter cohort 47% underwent prior external beam radiation therapy vs 17% of the secondary sling cohort (p = 0.01). Average preoperative 24 hour pad weight and pad number were higher in the artificial urinary sphincter cohort. Median followup in artificial urinary sphincter and secondary sling cases was 4.5 (IQR 4-12) and 4 months (IQR 1-5), respectively. Overall treatment failure was seen in 55% of patients (16 of 29) with a secondary sling vs 6% (2 of 32) with an artificial urinary sphincter (unadjusted HR 7, 95% CI 2-32 and adjusted HR 6, 95% CI 1-31). Conclusion: In this cohort of patients with post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence and a failed primary sling those who underwent a secondary sling procedure were up to 6 times more likely to have persistent incontinence vs those who underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement. These data are useful for counseling patients and planning surgery. We currently recommend placement of an artificial urinary sphincter for patients in whom an initial sling has failed. (Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu