Amundsen Cindy L, Flynn Brian J, Webster George D
Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
J Urol. 2003 Jul;170(1):134-7; discussion 137. doi: 10.1097/01.ju.0000064442.45724.af.
We present a series of urethral erosion following a pubovaginal sling procedure due to synthetic and nonsynthetic materials and discuss their management and continence outcome.
During a 3-year period 57 patients underwent urethrolysis for urethral obstruction after receiving a pubovaginal sling. Urethral erosion, defined as sling material entering the urethral lumen, was present in 9 patients and this cohort comprises the focus of our review. In 3 patients the eroded material was synthetic, that is ProteGen (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) in 2 and polypropylene in 1. This condition was treated with removal of the whole sling, multilayer closure of the erosion and selective use of a Martius flap. In 6 patients the eroded material was nonsynthetic, that is allograft fascia in 5 and autograft fascia in 1. This condition was treated with sling incision and multilayer closure of the urethra. Preoperative assessment included a urogynecologic questionnaire, measurement of pad use, a voiding diary, cystourethroscopy and videourodynamics. Postoperatively similar parameters were used to assess continence outcomes and the need for subsequent procedures.
Nine patients were followed 30 months after urethrolysis. All 9 women had some manifestation of voiding dysfunction following the pubovaginal sling procedure, including urinary retention in 4, urge incontinence in 3 and mixed incontinence in 2. Urinary retention resolved in 3 patients and urge incontinence resolved in 4. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) persisted in 2 of the 3 patients in the synthetic group, while no patient in the nonsynthetic group had recurrent SUI. There were no recurrent urethral erosions or fistulas in either group.
Urethral erosion after a pubovaginal sling procedure can occur irrespective of the sling material. However, recurrent SUI is not an invariable outcome of the management of urethral erosion following the pubovaginal sling procedure.
我们报告了一系列因合成材料和非合成材料导致耻骨后阴道悬吊术后尿道侵蚀的病例,并讨论了其处理方法及控尿效果。
在3年期间,57例患者在接受耻骨后阴道悬吊术后因尿道梗阻接受了尿道松解术。9例患者出现尿道侵蚀,定义为吊带材料进入尿道腔,该队列构成了我们的研究重点。3例患者的侵蚀材料为合成材料,其中2例为ProteGen(波士顿科学公司,马萨诸塞州纳蒂克),1例为聚丙烯。对此情况的处理是取出整个吊带,对侵蚀部位进行多层缝合,并选择性使用Martius皮瓣。6例患者的侵蚀材料为非合成材料,其中5例为同种异体筋膜,1例为自体筋膜。对此情况的处理是切开吊带并对尿道进行多层缝合。术前评估包括一份泌尿妇科问卷、测量护垫使用情况、排尿日记、膀胱尿道镜检查和影像尿动力学检查。术后使用类似参数评估控尿效果及后续手术需求。
9例患者在尿道松解术后随访了30个月。所有9例女性在耻骨后阴道悬吊术后均有某种排尿功能障碍表现,包括4例尿潴留、3例急迫性尿失禁和2例混合性尿失禁。3例尿潴留患者症状缓解,4例急迫性尿失禁患者症状缓解。合成材料组3例患者中有2例持续性压力性尿失禁(SUI),而非合成材料组无患者出现复发性SUI。两组均无复发性尿道侵蚀或瘘管形成。
耻骨后阴道悬吊术后尿道侵蚀可能发生,与吊带材料无关。然而,复发性SUI并非耻骨后阴道悬吊术后尿道侵蚀处理的必然结果。