SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The European Research Journal / 2020 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4

Factors effecting the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter placement: a single-center study

Mustafa Murat AYDOS
Volkan ÇAĞLAYAN
Pages
276–282
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Cognitive functions of patients may be crucial in the postoperative satisfaction status.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: To evaluate the patients who underwent artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement and report outcomes of the procedure.Methods: From March 2008 to February 2017, the data of patients who have undergone AUS placement were evaluated retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To analyze factors effecting success and revision rates, patients were grouped according to age, BMI, comorbidities, smoking habbit, previous RT history and etiology of incontinence.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Cognitive functions of patients may be crucial in the postoperative satisfaction status.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Artificial urinary sphincter · post-prostatectomy incontinence · male incontinence

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the patients who underwent artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement and report outcomes of the procedure.Methods: From March 2008 to February 2017, the data of patients who have undergone AUS placement were evaluated retrospectively. Age, body-mass index (BMI), comorbidities, education level, previous radiotherapy (RT) history of the patients were recorded. Cognitive status was examined using the Mini Mental Status Examination test (MMSE). International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICIQ-SF) was completed pre- and post-operatively. Quality of life and satisfaction of patients were evaluated using Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. To analyze factors effecting success and revision rates, patients were grouped according to age, BMI, comorbidities, smoking habbit, previous RT history and etiology of incontinence. Treatment success was defined as requirement of ≤ 1/day.Results: A total of 61 patients were included in the study and each were cognitive intact (MMSE > 25). ICIQ-SF significantly improved in postoperative period (p < 0.001). PGI-I median score was 1 (1-4) in postoperative period. Success rate was 96.7% (n = 59) and 47 (77%) patients were complete dry. Revision requirement occured in 10 (16.4%) patients. When patient groups were compared according to the success and revision rates; presence of BMI > 25 kg/m2 was the only significant factor associated with revision requirement and there was no significant factor associated with success status.Conclusion: AUS placement is a safe and effective method in the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). Success and revision rates are similar regardless the etiology of PPI. Cognitive functions of patients may be crucial in the postoperative satisfaction status.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDOS, M. M., ÇAĞLAYAN, V. (2020). Factors effecting the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter placement: a single-center study. The European Research Journal, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 4, 276–282. https://ajindex.com/articles/360956

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Holm H, Fossa S, Hedlund H, Schultz A, Dahl AA. How should continence and incontinence after radical prostatectomy be evaluated? A prospective study of patient ratings and changes with time. J Urol 2014;192:1155-61
  2. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, Gilliland FD, Stephenson RA, Eley JW, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. JAMA 2000;283:354-60
  3. Potosky AL, Davis WW, Hoffman RM, Stanford JL, Stephenson RA, Penson DF, et al. Five-year outcomes after prostatectomy or radiotherapy for prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:1358-67
  4. Tienza A, Robles JE, Hevia M, Algarra R, Diez-Caballero F, Pascual JI. Prevalence analysis of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy and influential preoperative factors in a single institution. Aging Male 2018;21:24-30
  5. Kuntz RM, Ahyai S, Lehrich K, Fayad A. Transurethral holmium laser enucleation of the prostate versus transurethral electrocautery resection of the prostate: a randomized prospective trial in 200 patients. J Urol 2004:172:1012-6
  6. Muzzonigro G, Milanese G, Minardi D, Yehia M, Galosi AB, Dellabella M. Safety and efficacy of transurethral resection of prostate glands up to 150 ml: a prospective comparative study with 1 year of followup. J Urol 2004:172:611-5
  7. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)--incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol 2006:50:969-79
  8. Reich O, Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Seitz M, Schlenker B, Hermanek P, et al. Morbidity, mortality and early outcome of transurethral resection of the prostate: a prospective multicenter evaluation of 10,654 patients. J Urol 2008:180:246-9
  9. Montague DK. Artificial urinary sphincter: long-term results and patient satisfaction. Adv Urol 2012;2012:835290
  10. Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology 2015;86:602-7
  11. Trigo Rocha F, Gomes CM, Mitre AI, Arap S, Srougi M. A prospective study evaluating the efficacy of the artificial sphincter AMS 800 for the treatment of postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence and the correlation between preoperative urodynamic and surgical outcomes. Urology 2008;71:85-9
  12. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new prop