Introduction: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is a major complication with profound impact on the social life of the patients. we report inicial cases of patients treated with male sling implant. Methods: Eight patients with urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy underwent to male sling (Argus-T® - Promedon) implant. We analyzed the age, the number of transurethral resection previously of the implant, the degree of incontinence before the sling (by urodynamics) and the subjective satisfaction with the surgery by telephone. Results: The patients (08) were submitted to a radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. All incontinent patients developed stenosis of vesico-urethral anastomosis and were underwent transurethral resection of the anastomotic fibrosis (ranging from one to three procedures). Five patients had moderate to severe urinary incontinence before the procedures. After the implant, five pa-tients had no improvement in the degree of incontinence, three patients had a subjective improvement, two of them were completely dry. These, previously, had the lowest degree of incontinence in the objective analysis (urodynamics). Conclu-sion: The urinary incontinence after prostatectomy is a morbidity with challenging treatment. The male sling is a good method for mild cases and motivated patients, not being the first choice for more severe cases.
| Published in | Science Research (Volume 1, Issue 3) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11 |
| Page(s) | 35-38 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2013. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Male Sling, Urinary Incontinence, Radical Prostatectomy Complication
| [1] | Nitti VW, Blaivas JG. Urinary Incontinence. In: Walsh P, Retik A, Vaughan ED, Wein A, editors. Campbell’s Urology. New York: Saunders; 2010. pp. 2047–2049. |
| [2] | Burkhard FC, Kessler TM, Fleischmann A, Thalmann GN, Schu-macher M, Studer UE. Nerve sparing open radical retropubic prostatectomy—does it have an impact on urinary continence? J Urol. 2006;176(1):189–195. |
| [3] | Rudy DC, Woodside JR, Crawford ED. Urodynamic evaluation of incontinence in patients undergoing modified Campbell radical retropubic prostatectomy: a prospective study. J Urol. 1984;132(4):708–712. |
| [4] | Wei JT, Dunn RL, Sandler HM, et al. Comprehensive comparison of health-related quality of life after contemporary therapies for localized prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(2):557–566. |
| [5] | Hunter KF, Moore KN, Cody DJ, Glazener CM. Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(2) CD001843. |
| [6] | Moore KN, Cody DJ, Glazener CM. Conservative management for post prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2) CD001843. |
| [7] | Bross S, Kwon ST, Peter S, Honeck P. New techniques for surgical treatment of postoperative male stress incontinence. Urologe A. 2007;46(3):257–263. |
| [8] | Hubner WA, Schlarp OM. Treatment of incontinence after prostatectomy using a new minimally invasive device: adjustable continence therapy. BJU Int.2005;96(4):587–594. |
| [9] | Tse V, Stone AR. Incontinence after prostatectomy: the artificial sphincter. BJU Int. 2003; 92: 886-889. |
| [10] | Schaeffer AJ. Editorial: prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 2002; 167: 602. |
| [11] | Castle EP, Andrews PE, Itano N, Novicki DE, Swanson SK, Ferrigni RG. The male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: mean follow up of 18 months. J Urol 2005;173: 1657-1660. |
| [12] | Rehder P, Gozzi C. Transobturator sling suspension for male urinary incontinence including post radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007;52: 860-866. |
| [13] | Wang R, McGuire EJ, He C, Faeber GJ, Latini JM. Long-term outcomes after primary failures of artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Urology 2012; 79: 922-928. |
| [14] | Lucas M et al. European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.023 |
| [15] | Bauer RM, Soljanik I, Fullhase C, et al. Results of the AdVance transobturador male sling after radical prostatectomy and adjuvant radiotherapy. Urology 2011;77:474-479. |
| [16] | Rehder P, Mitterberger M, Pichler R, et al. Two year outcome of the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence [Abstract 994]. Eur Urol Suppl 2011;10:309. |
| [17] | Hubner WA, Gallistl H, Rutkowski M, Huber ER. Adjustable bulbourethral male sling: experience after 101 cases of moderate-to-severe male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2010;107:777-782. |
| [18] | Marshall V, Pollack R, Miller CH. Observation on urinary dysfunction after excision of the rectum. J Urol 1946;55:409-416. |
| [19] | Raz S, McGuire EJ, Ehrlich RM et al. Fascial sling to correct male neurogenic sphincter incompetence: the McGuire/Raz approach. J Urol 1988; 139:528-531. |
| [20] | Mizuo T, Tanizawa A, Yamada T, Ando M, Oshima H. Sling operation for male stress incontinence by utilizing modified Stamey technique. Urology 1992; 39: 211-214. |
| [21] | Stamey T. Perineal compression of the corpus spongiosum of the bulbar urethra. An operation for post radical prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 1994; 151: A90. |
| [22] | Shoukry MS, El-Salmy S. Urethral needle suspension for male urinary incontinence. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1997; 31: 267-270. |
| [23] | Schaeffer AJ, Clemens CJ, Ferrari M, Stamey TA. The male bulbourethral sling procedure for post-radical prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 1998; 159: 1510-1515. |
| [24] | Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S, Wein A. Incontinence: management. In 3rd International Consultation on Incontinence 2004; 2: 1252. |
| [25] | Kaufman JJ. A new operation for male incontinence. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970; 131: 295-299. |
| [26] | Madjar S, Jacoby K, Giberti C et al. Bone anchored sling for the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 2001; 165: 72-76. |
| [27] | Comiter CV. The male sling for stress urinary incontinence: a prospective study. J Urol 2002; 167: 597-601. |
| [28] | Gozzi C, Becker AJ, Bauer R, Bastian PJ. Early results of transobturator for male urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 960-961. |
APA Style
Cassini. M. F., Mazzo. A, Tucci Jr. S. (2013). Male Sling for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: Inicial Results. Science Research, 1(3), 35-38. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11
ACS Style
Cassini. M. F.; Mazzo. A; Tucci Jr. S. Male Sling for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: Inicial Results. Sci. Res. 2013, 1(3), 35-38. doi: 10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11
AMA Style
Cassini. M. F., Mazzo. A, Tucci Jr. S. Male Sling for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: Inicial Results. Sci Res. 2013;1(3):35-38. doi: 10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11,
author = {Cassini. M. F. and Mazzo. A and Tucci Jr. S.},
title = {Male Sling for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: Inicial Results},
journal = {Science Research},
volume = {1},
number = {3},
pages = {35-38},
doi = {10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sr.20130103.11},
abstract = {Introduction: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is a major complication with profound impact on the social life of the patients. we report inicial cases of patients treated with male sling implant. Methods: Eight patients with urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy underwent to male sling (Argus-T® - Promedon) implant. We analyzed the age, the number of transurethral resection previously of the implant, the degree of incontinence before the sling (by urodynamics) and the subjective satisfaction with the surgery by telephone. Results: The patients (08) were submitted to a radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. All incontinent patients developed stenosis of vesico-urethral anastomosis and were underwent transurethral resection of the anastomotic fibrosis (ranging from one to three procedures). Five patients had moderate to severe urinary incontinence before the procedures. After the implant, five pa-tients had no improvement in the degree of incontinence, three patients had a subjective improvement, two of them were completely dry. These, previously, had the lowest degree of incontinence in the objective analysis (urodynamics). Conclu-sion: The urinary incontinence after prostatectomy is a morbidity with challenging treatment. The male sling is a good method for mild cases and motivated patients, not being the first choice for more severe cases.},
year = {2013}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Male Sling for Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy: Inicial Results AU - Cassini. M. F. AU - Mazzo. A AU - Tucci Jr. S. Y1 - 2013/06/20 PY - 2013 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11 DO - 10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11 T2 - Science Research JF - Science Research JO - Science Research SP - 35 EP - 38 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2329-0927 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sr.20130103.11 AB - Introduction: Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy is a major complication with profound impact on the social life of the patients. we report inicial cases of patients treated with male sling implant. Methods: Eight patients with urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy underwent to male sling (Argus-T® - Promedon) implant. We analyzed the age, the number of transurethral resection previously of the implant, the degree of incontinence before the sling (by urodynamics) and the subjective satisfaction with the surgery by telephone. Results: The patients (08) were submitted to a radical retropubic prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer. All incontinent patients developed stenosis of vesico-urethral anastomosis and were underwent transurethral resection of the anastomotic fibrosis (ranging from one to three procedures). Five patients had moderate to severe urinary incontinence before the procedures. After the implant, five pa-tients had no improvement in the degree of incontinence, three patients had a subjective improvement, two of them were completely dry. These, previously, had the lowest degree of incontinence in the objective analysis (urodynamics). Conclu-sion: The urinary incontinence after prostatectomy is a morbidity with challenging treatment. The male sling is a good method for mild cases and motivated patients, not being the first choice for more severe cases. VL - 1 IS - 3 ER -
Information
Email: