Current interventional management of male stress urinary incontinence following urological procedures
| Autor: | Ireneusz Ostrowski, Piotr Chlosta, Tomasz Wiatr, Emil Śledź, Jakub Bukowczan, Klaudia Stangel-Wójcikiewicz, Mikolaj Przydacz, Tomasz Golabek, Janusz Ciechan |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2015 |
| Předmět: |
Stress incontinence
medicine.medical_specialty Review Paper business.industry Urethral sphincter Interventional management Urinary incontinence General Medicine bulking agents artificial urinary sphincter medicine.disease Sling (weapon) Surgery pro-ACT Artificial urinary sphincter stem cells medicine Prostatic surgery Implant medicine.symptom business |
| Zdroj: | Central European Journal of Urology |
| ISSN: | 2080-4873 2080-4806 |
| Popis: | Introduction Despite improvements in surgical techniques and implementation of minimally invasive procedures, male stress urinary incontinence affects a substantial number of patients after prostatic surgery. In response to increasing demand of optimal treatment modality, new alternatives to artificial urinary sphincter have recently been introduced. This review summarises the therapeutic surgical options with their outcomes in management of postprostatectomy stress incontinence. Material and methods We performed a literature review by searching the PubMed, Web of Science and Embase databases for articles published from January 2000 until April 2015 based on clinical relevance. Results Artificial urinary sphincter is currently considered the “gold standard” treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. Although the new devices in this group have recently been investigated, the AMS 800 remains the only widely used implant. Male slings and adjustable continence devices, achieve the social continence rates up to 60%. Periurethral injections of bulking agents, have limited efficacy of male stress incontinence. Argus sling and ProACT are both associated with substantial explantation rates. Stem cell therapy is a promising option but still requires additional testing. Conclusions The development of new alternatives to artificial urinary sphincter is constantly progressing. Although recently introduced minimally invasive treatment options have not yet surpassed the outcomes of the artificial urinary sphincter they should continue to be evaluated and compared against the gold standard. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|