Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of outcomes for adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter after previous artificial urinary sphincter erosion.
Urology. 2009 Jun; 73(6):1363-7.U

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of the adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with recurrent postprostatectomy incontinence after previous AUS erosion.

METHODS

Sixteen patients with recurrent postprostatectomy incontinence who had undergone either adjustable bulbourethral male sling placement (group 1, n = 8) or AUS implantation (group 2, n = 8) were included in the study. The preoperative evaluations included history, physical examination, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form, pad test, cystoscopy, and urodynamic studies. The follow-up examinations were performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and annually thereafter.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 10 months (range 7-19) and 22 months (range 6-38) for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .009). Of the 16 patients, 6 were cured, 1 with the sling and 5 with the AUS (cure was defined as no pads daily); 3 were improved, 1 with the sling and 2 with the AUS (improvement was defined as no more than 2 pads daily), and 7 had treatment failure, 6 with the sling and 1 with the AUS. No intraoperative complication was seen in either group. Readjustment of sling tension was done in 4 patients who had persistent incontinence. No reoperation, excluding the readjustments, was required in group 1; however, 3 patients had transient perineal pain. The AUS was removed for recent erosion at 6 and 12 months postoperatively in 1 cured patient and 1 patient with treatment failure, respectively. Ultimately, 50% of the patients (25% with the sling and 75% with the AUS) were cured or improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study have shown that AUS implantation results in better outcomes than placement of the adjustable bulbourethral male sling as secondary therapy.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urology, S. B. Diskapi Yildirim Beyazit Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey. tuyguncan@yahoo.comNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

19376562

Citation

Tuygun, Can, et al. "Comparison of Outcomes for Adjustable Bulbourethral Male Sling and Artificial Urinary Sphincter After Previous Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosion." Urology, vol. 73, no. 6, 2009, pp. 1363-7.
Tuygun C, Imamoglu A, Gucuk A, et al. Comparison of outcomes for adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter after previous artificial urinary sphincter erosion. Urology. 2009;73(6):1363-7.
Tuygun, C., Imamoglu, A., Gucuk, A., Goktug, G., & Demirel, F. (2009). Comparison of outcomes for adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter after previous artificial urinary sphincter erosion. Urology, 73(6), 1363-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.073
Tuygun C, et al. Comparison of Outcomes for Adjustable Bulbourethral Male Sling and Artificial Urinary Sphincter After Previous Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosion. Urology. 2009;73(6):1363-7. PubMed PMID: 19376562.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of outcomes for adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter after previous artificial urinary sphincter erosion. AU - Tuygun,Can, AU - Imamoglu,Abdurrahim, AU - Gucuk,Adnan, AU - Goktug,Goksel, AU - Demirel,Fuat, Y1 - 2009/04/18/ PY - 2008/07/24/received PY - 2008/09/15/revised PY - 2008/10/27/accepted PY - 2009/4/21/entrez PY - 2009/4/21/pubmed PY - 2009/7/2/medline SP - 1363 EP - 7 JF - Urology JO - Urology VL - 73 IS - 6 N2 - OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of the adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with recurrent postprostatectomy incontinence after previous AUS erosion. METHODS: Sixteen patients with recurrent postprostatectomy incontinence who had undergone either adjustable bulbourethral male sling placement (group 1, n = 8) or AUS implantation (group 2, n = 8) were included in the study. The preoperative evaluations included history, physical examination, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form, pad test, cystoscopy, and urodynamic studies. The follow-up examinations were performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and annually thereafter. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 10 months (range 7-19) and 22 months (range 6-38) for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .009). Of the 16 patients, 6 were cured, 1 with the sling and 5 with the AUS (cure was defined as no pads daily); 3 were improved, 1 with the sling and 2 with the AUS (improvement was defined as no more than 2 pads daily), and 7 had treatment failure, 6 with the sling and 1 with the AUS. No intraoperative complication was seen in either group. Readjustment of sling tension was done in 4 patients who had persistent incontinence. No reoperation, excluding the readjustments, was required in group 1; however, 3 patients had transient perineal pain. The AUS was removed for recent erosion at 6 and 12 months postoperatively in 1 cured patient and 1 patient with treatment failure, respectively. Ultimately, 50% of the patients (25% with the sling and 75% with the AUS) were cured or improved. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study have shown that AUS implantation results in better outcomes than placement of the adjustable bulbourethral male sling as secondary therapy. SN - 1527-9995 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/19376562/Comparison_of_outcomes_for_adjustable_bulbourethral_male_sling_and_artificial_urinary_sphincter_after_previous_artificial_urinary_sphincter_erosion_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -