Traitement de l’incontinence urinaire d’effort après prostatectomie : résultats du sphincter urinaire artificiel après échec de bandelette sous-urétrale

Belot, P.-Y.; Fassi-Fehri, H.; Crouzet, Sébastien; Codas, R.; Badet, Lionel; Gelet, A.; Martín, Xavier

doi:10.1016/j.purol.2012.08.002

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Belot and colleagues found that a previously unsuccessful sling influenced patients' results after an AUS was implanted and did not find differences between patients who had previously used a sling and patients who used an AUS as a first-line treatment. 18 However, Ajay and colleagues compared the results of continence among patients with UI PP treated with a rescue AUS or a transobturator sling and found that those who underwent a secondary sling procedure were up to six times more likely to have persistent incontinence compared with those who underwent AUS placement. 19 Kumar and colleagues found that 75% of patients with moderate UI preferred a sling over an AUS.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Systematic Reviews and The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of surgical management with an adjustable sling versus an artificial urinary sphincter in patients with severe urinary postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Bomba

Flórez

García

et al. 2019

Therapeutic Advances in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of an adjustable sling compared with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with severe urinary incontinence (SUI) postprostatectomy (PP). Methods: This review was carried out following the Cochrane Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) declaration. We searched Medline, Embase, LILACS, and CENTRAL databases. Studies with patients older than 18 years of age with SUI PP who underwent sling or AUS intervention and had been monitored for longer than 12 months were included. Results: Seven studies were included, yielding a sample size of 420. Pads were reportedly dry or improved in 70% of the sling group compared with 74% in the AUS group. The Incontinence Impact Questionnaire, Short Form (IIQ-7) was the most frequently used scale and showed improvement, with a score of 82.8% in the AUS group compared with 86.1% in the sling group. When comparing interventions with nonintervention, relative risks (RRs) of 35.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.17–174.35) and 45.14 (95% CI: 11.09–183.70) were found for the adjustable sling and AUS, respectively, which were statistically significant. No significant differences were found when AUS versus adjustable sling were compared, with an RR of 0.78 (95% CI: 0.09–6.56). We found a low risk of bias in most studies. Conclusions: Both interventions can reduce incontinence and improve the quality of life of patients with SUI PP. The published literature is substantially limited as no randomized clinical trials are available, no consensus has been reached regarding the definition of severity of incontinence, and considerable heterogeneity exists across the outcome variables measured.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Systematic Reviews and The Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of surgical management with an adjustable sling versus an artificial urinary sphincter in patients with severe urinary postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Bomba

Flórez

García

et al. 2019

Therapeutic Advances in Urology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, up to 13% of men who undergo male sling surgery will ultimately have implantation of an AUS [ 73 ]. A number of small case series have shown that AUS placement after failed male sling has a high success rate of 80% to 90% without an increase in the expected complication rate [ 74 75 76 77 78 ]. Whereas the TO sling may be left in situ without affecting AUS placement, the quadratic sling must be partially excised to permit access to the bulbar and perineal urethra for proper AUS cuff placement.…”

Section: Which Operation For Which Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

The artificial urinary sphincter and male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: Which patient should get which procedure?

Comiter

Dobberfuhl

2016

Investig Clin Urol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surgery is the most efficacious treatment for postprostatectomy incontinence. The ideal surgical approach depends on a variety of patient factors including history of prior incontinence surgery or radiation treatment, bladder contractility, severity of leakage, and patient expectations. Most patients choose to avoid a mechanical device, opting for the male sling over the artificial urinary sphincter. The modern male sling has continued to evolve with respect to device design and surgical technique. Various types of slings address sphincteric incompetence via different mechanisms of action. The recommended surgery, however, must be individualized to the patient based on degree of incontinence, detrusor contractility, and urethral compliance. A thorough urodynamic evaluation is indicated for the majority of patients, and the recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter, a transobturator sling, or a quadratic sling will depend on urodynamic findings and the patient's particular preference. As advancements in this field evolve, and our understanding of the pathophysiology of incontinence and mechanisms of various devices improves, we expect to see continued evolution in device design.

show abstract

Functional Devices

Grall¹

2015

Male Stress Urinary Incontinence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traitement de l’incontinence urinaire d’effort après prostatectomie : résultats du sphincter urinaire artificiel après échec de bandelette sous-urétrale

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

Effectiveness of surgical management with an adjustable sling versus an artificial urinary sphincter in patients with severe urinary postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Effectiveness of surgical management with an adjustable sling versus an artificial urinary sphincter in patients with severe urinary postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

The artificial urinary sphincter and male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: Which patient should get which procedure?

Functional Devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About