Literature DB >> 29948042

Functional follow-up after Advance® and Advance XP® male sling surgery: assessment of predictive factors.

Argimiro Collado1, José Domínguez-Escrig2, Isabel María Ortiz Rodríguez3, Miguel Ramirez-Backhaus2, Carmelo Rodríguez Torreblanca3, José Rubio-Briones2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of the Advance® and AdvanceXP® slings in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) post-radical prostatectomy and to identify predictive factors for outcome.
METHODS: Included were male patients with SUI following radical prostatectomy who had a positive "repositioning test", 24 h-pad weight (PW) test < 400 g and who were continent at night and at rest. Urgency was defined as a sudden compelling desire to pass urine, which was difficult to defer. The cure rate was defined as no pad use.
RESULTS: From February 2008 to October 2014, 24 AdVance® and 70 AdVance XP® were implanted. The median (range) follow-up was 49 (12-102) months. The overall cure rate was 77%. The preoperative 24 h PW was significantly related to the continence outcome (p = 0.044). A total of 12 patients (13%) presented with postoperative AUR, which was significantly related to abnormal voiding detrusor activity (p = 0.036). Twenty-two patients (23%) had postoperative urgency (16% "de novo"), which was significantly related to preoperative urgency (p = 0.003). During follow-up, a degree of deterioration of continence was observed in five patients who were classed as cured initially. To date, no reports of urethral sling erosion have been made.
CONCLUSIONS: The AdVance® and AdVanceXP® slings are safe and effective in relieving SUI following post-radical prostatectomy. There were no differences between the two slings in terms of efficacy, urgency or postoperative AUR. There was a moderate rate of "de novo "urgency and low rate of loss of continence during follow-up.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Acute urinary retention; Advance® sling; Incontinence; Radical prostatectomy; Urgency

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29948042     DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2357-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Urol        ISSN: 0724-4983            Impact factor:   4.226


  6 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of Different Invasive Devices for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Stefano Salciccia; Pietro Viscuso; Giulio Bevilacqua; Antonio Tufano; Paolo Casale; Ettore De Berardinis; Giovanni Battista Di Pierro; Susanna Cattarino; Alessandro Gentilucci; Francesca Lourdes Lia; Di Giulio Ivan; Davide Rosati; Francesco Del Giudice; Alessandro Sciarra; Gianna Mariotti
Journal:  Adv Urol       Date:  2022-06-21

Review 2.  Artificial urinary sphincter: current status and future directions.

Authors:  Culley C Carson
Journal:  Asian J Androl       Date:  2020 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.285

3.  De novo OAB After ATOMS: An Underestimated Problem or a Rare Side Effect?

Authors:  Sandra Schönburg; Wilhelm Bauer; Nasreldin Mohammed; Clemens Brössner; Paolo Fornara
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2019-12-17

4.  Standing cough test stratification of moderate male stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Roger K Khouri; Yooni A Yi; Nicolas M Ortiz; Adam S Baumgarten; Ellen E Ward; Maia E VanDyke; Steven J Hudak; Allen F Morey
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2021 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.541

Review 5.  Narrative review of male urethral sling for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence: sling type, patient selection, and clinical applications.

Authors:  Raevti Bole; Kevin J Hebert; Harrison C Gottlich; Elizabeth Bearrick; Tobias S Kohler; Boyd R Viers
Journal:  Transl Androl Urol       Date:  2021-06

6.  Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Postradical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence - Is It the Best Option?

Authors:  Yun-Sok Ha; Eun Sang Yoo
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 2.835

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.