Tanja Hüsch1, Alexander Kretschmer2,3, Frauke Thomsen4, Dominik Kronlachner4, Martin Kurosch5, Alice Obaje6, Ralf Anding7, Ruth Kirschner-Hermanns7, Tobias Pottek8, Achim Rose9, Roberto Olianas10, Lukas Lusuardi11, Alexander Friedl12, Roland Homberg13, Jesco Pfitzenmaier14, Fabian Queissert15, Carsten M Naumann16, Josef Schweiger17, Carola Wotzka18, Joanne Nyarangi-Dix19, Bernhard Brehmer20, Rudi Abdunnur21, Hagen Loertzer22, Kurt Ulm23, Wilhelm Hübner24, Ricarda M Bauer2, Axel Haferkamp5. 1. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. tanja.huesch@uni-mainz.de. 2. Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Großhadern, Munich, Germany. 3. Vancouver Prostate Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 4. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 5. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Medical Center of Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, St. Bernward Hospital Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany. 7. Neuro-Urology, Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 8. Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Reconstructive Urology, Berlin/Asklepios Hospital West Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany. 9. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Helios Hospital Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany. 10. Department of Urology, Hospital Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany. 11. Department of Urology, Landeskrankenhaus Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria. 12. Department of Urology, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria. 13. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, St. Barbara Hospital Hamm GmbH, Hamm, Germany. 14. Department of Urology, Evangelic Hospital Bethel, Bielefeld, Germany. 15. Department of Urology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany. 16. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Schleswig Holstein Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany. 17. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Catholic Hospital St. Johann Nepomuk, Erfurt, Germany. 18. Department of Urology, Diakonie Hospital Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany. 19. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. 20. Department of Urology, Diakonie Hospital Schwäbisch Hall, Schwäbisch Hall, Germany. 21. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Helios Hospital Schwelm, Schwelm, Germany. 22. Department of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Westpfalz Hospital, Kaiserslautern, Germany. 23. Institute of Medical Informatic, Statistic and Epidemiology, Technical University Munich, Munich, Germany. 24. Department of Urology, Hospital Weinviertel Korneuburg, Korneuburg, Austria.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi2-test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups. RESULTS: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage. CONCLUSIONS: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi2-test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups. RESULTS: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage. CONCLUSIONS: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.
Entities:
Keywords:
AdVance; AdVanceXP; Male; Male sling; Stress urinary incontinence
Authors: Ricarda M Bauer; Irina Soljanik; Claudius Füllhase; Alexander Karl; Armin Becker; Christian G Stief; Christian Gozzi Journal: BJU Int Date: 2010-09-30 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Peter Rehder; Nina M Staudacher; Joerg Schachtner; Maria E Berger; Florian Schillfahrt; Verena Hauser; Raphael Mueller; Viktor Skradski; Wolfgang Horninger; Bernhard Glodny Journal: Adv Urol Date: 2016-01-31
Authors: Fabian Queissert; Keith Rourke; Sandra Schönburg; Alessandro Giammò; Andreas Gonsior; Carmen González-Enguita; Antonio Romero; Andres J Schrader; Francisco Cruz; Francisco E Martins; Juan F Dorado; Javier C Angulo Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 4.241