• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

The Adjustable Transobturator Male System in Stress Urinary Incontinence After Transurethral Resection of the Prostate

A. Friedl, J. Schneeweiss, K. Stangl, S. Mühlstädt, R. Zachoval, S. Hruby, T. Gründler, D. Kivaranovic, P. Fornara, L. Lusuardi, C. Brössner,

. 2017 ; 109 (-) : 184-189. [pub] 20170714

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19001225

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) in men with stress urinary incontinence after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a large international prospectively administrated ATOMS register, we identified 49 patients with an ATOMS device as a result of persistent stress urinary incontinence after TURP. For evaluation, the men were divided into standard transurethral resection of the prostate (sTURP) and palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (pTURP) in radiated patients. Baseline and follow-up measurements included continence parameters, urodynamics, quality-of-life surveys (Patient Global Impression-Improvement and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form), and pain ratings. The dry rate (0-1 security pad/<10 mL urine loss), the success rate (overall improvement), removals, complications, and treatment failures were recorded. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After a median of 34 and 22 months' follow-up and 2-3 adjustments, the sTURP and pTURP cohorts had 58% and 50% dry rates and 90% and 87% success rates. Hence, no improvement was seen in 10% and 13%. The removal rate was higher in pTURP (50% vs 10%, P = .0171) and infection was the most common side effect (50%) observed. Neither intraoperative nor Clavien-Dindo 4 and 5 adverse events were recorded. In sTURP and pTURP, the median daily pad count and the pad test improved significantly (all P <.001), and quality-of-life parameters shifted to a high satisfaction level (P <.001 and P = .001). Urodynamics remained unchanged and postoperative pain was not an issue. CONCLUSION: The ATOMS device shows promising treatment outcomes in patients after TURP and a similar efficacy as in postprostatectomy incontinence. There is no difference in continence outcome between sTURP and pTURP; however, a higher removal rate was found after pTURP, which may be important for patient counseling.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19001225
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20190115110623.0
007      
ta
008      
190107s2017 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.004 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28712889
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Friedl, Alexander $u Department of Urology, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria. Electronic address: friedl.urologie@gmail.com.
245    14
$a The Adjustable Transobturator Male System in Stress Urinary Incontinence After Transurethral Resection of the Prostate / $c A. Friedl, J. Schneeweiss, K. Stangl, S. Mühlstädt, R. Zachoval, S. Hruby, T. Gründler, D. Kivaranovic, P. Fornara, L. Lusuardi, C. Brössner,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of the Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) in men with stress urinary incontinence after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From a large international prospectively administrated ATOMS register, we identified 49 patients with an ATOMS device as a result of persistent stress urinary incontinence after TURP. For evaluation, the men were divided into standard transurethral resection of the prostate (sTURP) and palliative transurethral resection of the prostate (pTURP) in radiated patients. Baseline and follow-up measurements included continence parameters, urodynamics, quality-of-life surveys (Patient Global Impression-Improvement and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form), and pain ratings. The dry rate (0-1 security pad/<10 mL urine loss), the success rate (overall improvement), removals, complications, and treatment failures were recorded. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: After a median of 34 and 22 months' follow-up and 2-3 adjustments, the sTURP and pTURP cohorts had 58% and 50% dry rates and 90% and 87% success rates. Hence, no improvement was seen in 10% and 13%. The removal rate was higher in pTURP (50% vs 10%, P = .0171) and infection was the most common side effect (50%) observed. Neither intraoperative nor Clavien-Dindo 4 and 5 adverse events were recorded. In sTURP and pTURP, the median daily pad count and the pad test improved significantly (all P <.001), and quality-of-life parameters shifted to a high satisfaction level (P <.001 and P = .001). Urodynamics remained unchanged and postoperative pain was not an issue. CONCLUSION: The ATOMS device shows promising treatment outcomes in patients after TURP and a similar efficacy as in postprostatectomy incontinence. There is no difference in continence outcome between sTURP and pTURP; however, a higher removal rate was found after pTURP, which may be important for patient counseling.
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a senioři nad 80 let $7 D000369
650    _2
$a průřezové studie $7 D003430
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a pooperační komplikace $x chirurgie $7 D011183
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a suburetrální pásky $x škodlivé účinky $7 D053825
650    12
$a transuretrální resekce prostaty $7 D020728
650    _2
$a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
650    _2
$a stresová inkontinence moči $x chirurgie $7 D014550
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Schneeweiss, Jenifer $u Department of Urology, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Stangl, Kathrin $u Department of Urology, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Mühlstädt, Sandra $u Klinik and Poliklinik of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital, Martin Luther University, Halle (Saale), Germany.
700    1_
$a Zachoval, Roman $u Thomayer Hospital, Department of Urology and 1st and 3rd Medical Faculty, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
700    1_
$a Hruby, Stephan $u Department of Urology, Landeskrankenhaus Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
700    1_
$a Gründler, Therese $u Department of Urology, Landeskrankenhaus Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
700    1_
$a Kivaranovic, Danijel $u Department of Statistics and Operations Research, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
700    1_
$a Fornara, Paolo $u Klinik and Poliklinik of Urology and Kidney Transplantation, University Hospital, Martin Luther University, Halle (Saale), Germany.
700    1_
$a Lusuardi, Lukas $u Department of Urology, Landeskrankenhaus Salzburg, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria.
700    1_
$a Brössner, Clemens $u Department of Urology, Barmherzige Schwestern Krankenhaus, Vienna, Austria.
773    0_
$w MED00010732 $t Urology $x 1527-9995 $g Roč. 109, č. - (2017), s. 184-189
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28712889 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20190107 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20190115110833 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1364033 $s 1039348
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 109 $c - $d 184-189 $e 20170714 $i 1527-9995 $m Urology $n Urology $x MED00010732
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20190107

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Možnosti archivace