Nuevo sling masculino "ARGUS" para el tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria de esfuerzo

Sierra, Jesús Moreno; Romano, Salomón Víctor; Romo, I. Galante; Ortega, Jerónimo Barrera; Casado, Jesús Salinas; Moyano, A. Silmi

doi:10.4321/s0004-06142006000600007

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Surgical techniques were applied as proposed by original authors and are described, in summary, below ( 4 - 6 ). All procedures were performed by the same surgeon: patients were submitted to regional anesthesia, in the lithotomy position and legs flexed at close to 90 degrees at the thigh level.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two SUSs were available in the Brazilian market at the time of recruiting for this research: Argus T ® -(Promedon–Cordoba, Argentina) ( 4 , 5 ) and Advance ® (American Medical Systems-Minnetonka, United States) ( 6 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both devices are transobturatory slings used to treat mild to moderate PPUI. Their technical configurations are different, as well as their mechanism of action, but both manufacturers claim that their products are effective and safe ( 4 - 6 ). There are no comparative studies analyzing their effectiveness and rates of complications.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Argus T® versus Advance® Sling for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A randomized clinical trial

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the results of two slings, Argus T® and Advance®, for the treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI). Material and Methods: From December 2010 to December 2011, 22 patients with PPUI were randomized as follows: 11 (mean age 62.09(±5.30)) underwent treatment with Advance® and 11 (mean age 62.55(±8.54)) with Argus T®. All patients were evaluated preoperatively with urodynamic testing, quality of life questionnaire (ICIQ-SF), voiding diary and 24-hour pad test. Exclusion criteria were: neurological diseases, severe detrusor overactivity and urethral stenosis. Evaluation was performed at 6, 12 and 18 months after the surgery. After implantation of the Argus T® sling, patients who experienced urine leakage equal to or greater than the initial volume underwent adjustment of the sling tension. Results were statistically analyzed using the Fisher’s test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Friedman’s non-parametric test or the Mann-Whitney test.Results Significant improvement of the 24-hour pad test was observed with the Argus T® sling (p=0.038) , With regard to the other parameters, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Removal of the Argus T® device due to perineal pain was performed in one patient (9%). Despite non uniform results, both devices were considered useful to improve quality of life (ICIQ-SF): Argus T® (p=0.018) and Advance® (p=0.017).Conclusions Better results were observed in the 24h pad test and in levels of satisfaction with the Argus T® device. Both slings contributed to improve quality of life (ICIQ-SF), with acceptable side effects.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argus T® versus Advance® Sling for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A randomized clinical trial

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This procedure was first described by Sierra et al . [41] In a cohort of 48 patients with a mean follow-up of 7.5 months Romano et al , showed a cure rate of 73%. As concerns major complications, the sling was removed in five cases due to urethral erosion and infection in three (6%) and two (4%) patients, respectively.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Slings in iatrogenic male incontinence: Current status

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The increasing number of prostatectomies entails an increasing number of patients suffering from iatrogenic incontinence despite improved surgical techniques. The severity of this problem often requires invasive treatments such as periurethral injection of bulking agents, artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation, and sub-urethral sling positioning. The artificial urethral sphincter has represented, until today, the gold standard but, in the recent years, sling systems have been investigated as minimally invasive alternative options. Today, three different sling procedures are commonly performed: bone-anchored, readjustable, and trans-obturator slings systems. The aim of this review is to critically report the current status of sling systems in the treatment of iatrogenic male incontinence.Materials and Methods:MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched and all articles between 1974 and 2009 were evaluated.Results:With regard to bone-anchored, readjustable, and trans-obturator slings systems, cure rates ranged between 58.0% and 86.0%, 55.5% and 73.0%, and 40.0% and 63.0%, respectively, while major complication rates ranged between 0 and 14.5%, 10.0 and 22.2%, and 0 and 10.0%, respectively.Conclusions:Suburethral slings are the only alternative techniques which can be favorably compared with the AUS, showing more advantages with respect to AUS implantations which are mainly represented by a quick and less invasive approach, low morbidity, and low costs. In spite of the difficulty in identifying the most effective sling procedure, overall, sling systems can be recommended for patients with persistent mild or moderate incontinence. However, the indication can also be extended to patients with severe incontinence, after appropriate counseling, allowing AUS implantation in the event of sling failure.

show abstract

“…[39] A new transobturator male sling system (AdVance, American Medical Systems) has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. The results were presented by Dr. Rehder at the American Urology Association meeting in Atlanta, GA, 2006.…”

Section: New Developmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Male incontinence: Pathophysiology and management

Singla¹

2007

Indian J Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-prostatectomy incontinence in men is a devastating condition. It impacts the quality of life profoundly. Various types of male sling procedures have been introduced over the years. Bone anchored male sling appears to be effective and safe in intermediate term follow up. It certainly more effective than collagen implant and may provide alternative treatment option in patient with mild to moderate incontinence. In short term, other novel procedures seem to be promising. In spite of new technology, artificial urinary sphincter continues to provide high patient satisfaction and cure rates.

show abstract

Nuevo sling masculino "ARGUS" para el tratamiento de la incontinencia urinaria de esfuerzo

Cited by 9 publications

References 13 publications

Argus T® versus Advance® Sling for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A randomized clinical trial

Argus T® versus Advance® Sling for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A randomized clinical trial

Slings in iatrogenic male incontinence: Current status

Male incontinence: Pathophysiology and management

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About