| Literature DB >> 31482019 |
Kostis I Nikolopoulos1,2, Eleftheria Chrysanthopoulou1,3, Vasilios Pergialiotis1, Laskarina Maria Korrou1, Despina N Perrea2, Dimitrios Dimitroulis1, Stergios K Doumouchtsis1,2,4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive methods for injured ligament and tendon restoration have been developed and gained popularity in recent years. Injury and relaxation of the pubourethral ligament (PUL) can lead to stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of injecting platelet rich plasma (PRP) into the PUL following its surgical transection resulting in SUI, confirmed by leak point pressure (LPP) measurements pre- and post-intervention in an experimental animal model.Entities:
Keywords: bladder; incontinence; platelet rich plasma (PRP); stress urinary incontinence; urethra
Year: 2019 PMID: 31482019 PMCID: PMC6715089 DOI: 10.5173/ceju.2019.1896
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cent European J Urol ISSN: 2080-4806
Figure 1Transection of the pubourethral ligament. The bladder was held with a pair of atraumatic forceps and gentle traction was applied superiorly and posteriorly, whilst the PUL was transected suprapubically.
Figure 2The bladder was held with a pair of atraumatic forceps, whilst the catheter was inserted through the bladder dome using a sharp needle as a guide.
Figure 3Water manometer. The bladder was at the level of the manometer and the relative hydrostatic pressure was zero cmH2O. The red ball of the manometer represents the intravesical pleasure.
Figure 4Water manometer. The bladder was at the level of the manometer and the relative hydrostatic pressure was zero cmH2O. The red ball of the manometer represents the intravesical pleasure.
Figure 5Water manometer. The bladder was at the level of the manometer, the catheter was inserted to the bladder dome and the pressure at the time of leakage was documented as leak point pressure.
Figure 6Platelet rich plasma group results. This chart presents the mean leak point pressures in cmH2O for each rat in the 4 different sets of measurements. Initially before the pubourethral ligament (PUL) transection and following the PUL transection and later at one and two months follow-up.
Figure 7Control group results. This chart presents the mean leak point pressures in cmH2O for each rat in the 4 different sets of measurements. Initially before the pubourethral ligament (PUL) transection and following the PUL transection, and later at one and two months follow-up.
Figure 8Median leak point pressures for each group over time at 0 before the pubourethral ligament (PUL) transection, at 0 post PUL transection and at 1 and 2 months.
Results: median pressures in cmH2O
| Leak point pressure among groups | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | PRP | p-value | |
| LPP – pre | 35.6 (29.8–44.8) | 40.5 (33.2–46.3) | .353 |
| LPP – post | 14.6 (5.8–19.0) | 15.7 (3.0–24.0) | .631 |
| LPP – 1 month | 27.3 (19.2–33.8) | 31.6 (24.8–37.4) | .043 |
| LPP – 2 months | 29.0 (27.0–34.0) | 36.8 (32.5–45.4) | <.001 |