Dergiler / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2021 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 5

Perioperative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis

Sayfa
427–435
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

These findings can assist with appropriate perioperative counseling of patients undergoing primary and replacement AUS implantations.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Objective: To evaluate differences in perioperative clinical outcomes in men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in primary versus replacement settings.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Materials and Methods: A review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed between 2010 and 2018 identifying males undergoing AUS implantation.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:These findings can assist with appropriate perioperative counseling of patients undergoing primary and replacement AUS implantations.
🔬Tür:Literatür & Derleme Çalışması
📍Kapsam:2010 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

Objective: To evaluate differences in perioperative clinical outcomes in men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in primary versus replacement settings. Secondarily, we aimed to identify patient-related factors contributing to complications associated with AUS placement. Materials and Methods: A review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed between 2010 and 2018 identifying males undergoing AUS implantation. Subjects were further subdivided into primary implantation or removal/replacement of AUS simultaneously via current procedural terminology codes 53445 and 53447, respectively. 30-Day postoperative outcomes were compared between cohorts using t-test and Fisher’s exact test. The relationship between patient factors and complications was evaluated using logistic regression. Results: A total of 1,892 patients were identified: 1,445 primary AUS placement and 447 AUS replacement procedures. Patients undergoing AUS replacement were statistically older than those undergoing primary implantation (71.4 vs 69.7 years, P < .001). AUS replacement procedures were associated with an increased rate of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) compared to primary procedures (1.3% vs 0.4%, P ¼ .042). There were no differences identified between cohorts for deep SSI, cardiopulmonary complications, reoperation, operative time, or length of stay. Logistic regression demonstrated that higher body mass index was found to be independent risk factors for any complications, and diabetes mellitus was associated with increased risk of AUS-related readmission. Conclusion: Within the perioperative period, patients undergoing replacement AUS have an increased risk of superficial SSI compared to primary AUS implantation. These findings can assist with appropriate perioperative counseling of patients undergoing primary and replacement AUS implantations.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

JELLA, T., FERNSTURM, A., CALLEGARI, M., CWALLINA, T., MUNDEY, W., Mahran, A., PETRINIC, B., RAY, A., ELGHALBAN, H., ABDELRAZEK, M., LOEB, A., THİRUMAVALAN, N., GUPTA, S. (2021). Perioperative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 5, 427–435. https://ajindex.com/articles/404246

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (12)

  1. Van Der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: A critical systematic review of its use in male nonneurogenic ?A3B2 thyc?> incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013
  2. 63(4):681-689. [CrossRef] 2. Crivellaro S, Morlacco A, Bodo G, et al. Systematic review of surgical treatment of post radical prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodynam. 2016
  3. 35(8):875-881. [CrossRef] 3. Nambiar AK, Bosch R, Cruz F, et al. EAU guidelines on assessment and nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2018
  4. 73(4):596-609. [CrossRef] 4. Poon SA, Silberstein JL, Savage C, Maschino AC, Lowrance WT, Sandhu JS. Surgical practice patterns for male urinary incontinence: Analysis of case logs from certifying American urologists. J Urol. 2012
  5. 188(1):205-210. [CrossRef] 5. Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM. Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: A 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol. 2008
  6. 179(5):1912-1916. [CrossRef] 6. Lai HH, Hsu EI, Teh BS, Butler EB, Boone TB. 13 years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine. J Urol. 2007
  7. 177(3):1021-1025. [CrossRef] 7. 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
  8. 86(3):602- 607. [CrossRef] 8. Yafi FA, DeLay KJ, Stewart C, Chiang J, Sangkum P, Hellstrom WJG. Device survival after primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2017
  9. 197(3):759-765. [CrossRef] 9. Cohen ME, Liu Y, Ko CY, Hall BL. Improved surgical outcomes for ACS NSQIP hospitals over time: Evaluation of hospital cohorts with up to 8 years of participation. Ann Surg. 2016
  10. 263(2):267-273. [CrossRef] 10. Lawson EH, Louie R, Zingmond DS, et al. A comparison of clinical registry versus administrative claims data for reporting of 30- day surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2012
  11. 256(6):973-981. [CrossRef] 11. Enomoto LM, Hollenbeak CS, Bhayani NH, Dillon PW, Gusani NJ. Measuring surgical quality: A national clinical registry versus administrative claims data. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014
  12. 18(8):1416- 1422. [CrossRef] 12. Guacheta´ Bomba PL, Ocampo Flo´rez GM, Echeverrı´a Garcı´a F, et al. Effectiveness of surgical management with an adjustable sling versus a