| Literature DB >> 28128907 |
Ralf Anding1, Manuel Schoen2, Ruth Kirschner-Hermanns1, Christian Fisang1, Stefan C Müller1, Stefan Latz1.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of urinary incontinence is increasing. Two major risk factors are overweight and age. We present objective and subjective cure rates of elderly and overweight patients treated with an adjustable single-incision sling system (AJUST™, C.R. BARD, Inc.).Entities:
Keywords: Body Mass Index ; Suburethral Slings; Urinary Incontinence, Stress
Year: 2017 PMID: 28128907 PMCID: PMC5433368 DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2015.0751
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int Braz J Urol ISSN: 1677-5538 Impact factor: 1.541
Pre-, intra-and postoperative data. Postoperative SUI and postoperative pad use are significant lower in patients with BMI <30. Data presented as mean value±standard deviation or relative frequency.
| All patients | BMI < 30 | BMI ≥ 30 | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Parity | 2.5 ± 1.7 | 2.3 ± 1.5 | 2.7 ± 1.9 | 0.297 |
| Patient age [a] | 70.3 ± 8.7 | 71.8 ± 7.8 | 68.3 ± 9.4 | 0.055 |
|
| ||||
| Operation time [min] | 24.9 ± 13.1 | 23.8 ± 11.8 | 26.3 ± 14.7 | 0.352 |
|
| ||||
| Hospital stay [d] | 3.1 ± 1.8 | 3.3 ± 2.2 | 2.9 ± 1.0 | 0.284 |
| Urge | 20/99 | 12/56 | 8/43 | 0,804 |
| SUI | 0.006 | |||
| - no | 50/71 | 35/41 | 15/30 | |
| - I° | 10/71 | 3/41 | 7/30 | |
| - II° | 8/71 | 3/41 | 5/30 | |
| - III° | 3/71 | 0 | 3/30 | |
| Positive stress test | 14/91 | 5/54 | 9/37 | 0.075 |
| Satisfaction | 0.055 | |||
| - very good | 33/100 | 24/56 | 9/44 | |
| - good | 30/100 | 17/56 | 13/44 | |
| - fair | 11/100 | 5/56 | 6/44 | |
| - poor | 26/100 | 10/56 | 16/44 | |
| Pad use | 1.6 ± 2.3 | 1.3 ± 2.2 | 2.8 ± 2.9 | 0.004 |
Figure 2Age ranged from 43 to 86 years (mean 70.3 years). The body-mass-index (BMI) of the patients is predominantly clear above the German average.
Figure 3A) Postoperative SUI is significant lower in patients with BMI <30 (p=0.006); B) Postoperative pad use is significant lower in patients with BMI <30 (p=0.004).
Figure 4The average BMI of the patients with a very good, good, fair, and poor result was 28.0, 29.8, 30.3, and 31.9, respectively. A clear trend in favor of a lower BMI is obvious.