Suppr超能文献

NEAT可扩张尖端控尿装置的随机对照试验。

A randomized controlled trial of the NEAT expandable tip continence device.

作者信息

Robinson H, Schulz J, Flood C, Hansen L

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alberta, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada.

出版信息

Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003 Aug;14(3):199-203; discussion 203. doi: 10.1007/s00192-002-1021-4. Epub 2003 Jul 9.

Abstract

Urethral devices are one conservative management option for stress and mixed urinary incontinence, but there is little published data about their use. The aims of this study were to assess the safety and efficacy of a new urethral device (NEAT) and compare it with the Reliance Insert. The ease of use of both devices was then evaluated. Twenty-four women with mixed or stress urinary incontinence, patients at our tertiary care urogynecology unit and who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were enrolled in the study. Study subjects were blinded and randomly assigned to a device group. Device efficacy was assessed by pad weighing at 0 and 4 months. Success was defined as a 50% or greater reduction in urine loss using the formula 100[(pad weight without device -pad weight with device)/pad weight with device]. Safety was evaluated using urinalysis and urine cultures. Ease of use assessment scales were also completed. Eleven patients were randomized to the Reliance Insert and 13 to the NEAT device. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, height, weight, duration of incontinence, pad weight, leakage score, parity or quality of life score. Based on the pad weight success formula, there was no significant difference in device success between the two groups at 4 months. Women who were postmenopausal had a trend towards a higher level of success in reduction of their pad weight. Previous treatment, diagnosis and hormone replacement therapy all had no relationship to device success. Leakage score data showed that subjects had a significant decrease in urine leakage when using either device. There was no statistically significant difference in ease of use between the two devices. Adverse symptoms most commonly noted were awareness of the device (62.5%), urgency (29.2%), and urethral discomfort or pain (20.8%). One urinary tract infection (UTI) was observed. The most common finding on urinalysis was trace hematuria (15.8%). Our conclusions are that the NEAT device appears to be at least as effective and safe as the Reliance Insert. Both devices are effective at decreasing urine leakage in patients with stress or mixed urinary incontinence. The risk of UTI is low, but these devices may cause trace hematuria.

摘要

尿道装置是压力性尿失禁和混合性尿失禁的一种保守治疗选择,但关于其使用的公开数据很少。本研究的目的是评估一种新型尿道装置(NEAT)的安全性和有效性,并将其与信赖插入式装置进行比较。然后评估了两种装置的易用性。24名患有混合性或压力性尿失禁的女性患者,来自我们三级医疗的妇科泌尿科室且符合纳入和排除标准,被纳入研究。研究对象被设盲并随机分配到一个装置组。通过在0个月和4个月时的尿垫称重来评估装置的有效性。成功的定义是使用公式100×[(无装置时尿垫重量 - 有装置时尿垫重量)/有装置时尿垫重量],尿失禁减少50%或更多。通过尿液分析和尿培养来评估安全性。还完成了易用性评估量表。11名患者被随机分配到信赖插入式装置组,13名患者被分配到NEAT装置组。两组在年龄、身高、体重、尿失禁持续时间、尿垫重量、漏尿评分、产次或生活质量评分方面没有显著差异。根据尿垫重量成功公式,两组在4个月时装置成功率没有显著差异。绝经后女性在减少尿垫重量方面有更高成功率的趋势。既往治疗、诊断和激素替代疗法均与装置成功率无关。漏尿评分数据显示,使用任何一种装置时受试者的尿失禁都有显著减少。两种装置在易用性方面没有统计学上的显著差异。最常出现的不良症状是对装置的感知(62.5%)、尿急(29.2%)以及尿道不适或疼痛(20.8%)。观察到1例尿路感染(UTI)。尿液分析中最常见的发现是微量血尿(15.8%)。我们的结论是,NEAT装置似乎至少与信赖插入式装置一样有效和安全。两种装置在减少压力性或混合性尿失禁患者的尿失禁方面均有效。UTI的风险较低,但这些装置可能会导致微量血尿。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验