Moore K N, Schieman S, Ackerman T, Dzus H Y, Metcalfe J B, Voaklander D C
University of Alberta Faculty of Nursing and Faculty of Medicine, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Urology. 2004 Jan;63(1):150-4. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2003.08.034.
To assess the safety, efficacy, comfort, and patient satisfaction with three penile compression devices: the Cunningham clamp, C3, and U-Tex.
The devices were tested in random order in a multiple-period, crossover study design using a Latin squares configuration. The subjects had undergone radical prostatectomy 6 months or more before the study, had no neurologic or cognitive impairment, and had not undergone radiotherapy. Baseline penile Doppler ultrasonography was followed by ultrasound scanning with each device. In random order, subjects completed a 4-hour pad test, with and without each device, and the questionnaire.
Twelve men completed the study. The mean Mini-Mental State Examination score was 29.6 (SD 1.2, range 27 to 30). The mean urine loss at baseline was 122.8 g (SD 130.8). The mean urine loss with each device was 53.3 g (SD 65.7) with the U-Tex, 32.3 g (SD 24.3) with C3, and 17.1 g (SD 21.3) with the Cunningham clamp (P <0.05). No device had an impact on the resistive index; the C3 and U-Tex allowed good cavernosal artery flow, and the Cunningham clamp significantly lowered the distal blood flow velocity (from 12.5 to 7.3 cm/s [left systolic velocity] to 9.5 cm/s [right systolic velocity]) even at the loosest setting. The Cunningham clamp was ranked positively by 10 of 12 men; 2 of 12 men rated the C3 positively; none rated the U-Tex positively.
The Cunningham device was the most efficacious and most acceptable to users, but also contributed to reduced systolic velocity in all men. None of the devices completely eliminated urine loss when applied at a comfortable pressure. Individualized instruction to cognitively capable men is necessary to ensure appropriate application, comfort, and fit.
评估三种阴茎压迫装置(坎宁安夹、C3和U型夹)的安全性、有效性、舒适度及患者满意度。
采用拉丁方配置的多周期交叉研究设计,对这些装置进行随机顺序测试。研究对象在研究前6个月或更长时间接受了根治性前列腺切除术,无神经或认知障碍,且未接受过放疗。在进行基线阴茎多普勒超声检查后,使用每种装置进行超声扫描。研究对象按随机顺序完成一项4小时的尿垫试验,试验过程中分别使用和不使用每种装置,并填写问卷。
12名男性完成了研究。简易精神状态检查表平均得分为29.6(标准差1.2,范围27至30)。基线时平均漏尿量为122.8克(标准差130.8)。使用U型夹时,每种装置的平均漏尿量为53.3克(标准差65.7),使用C3时为32.3克(标准差24.3),使用坎宁安夹时为17.1克(标准差21.3)(P<0.05)。没有一种装置对阻力指数有影响;C3和U型夹能使海绵体动脉血流良好,而即使在最宽松的设置下,坎宁安夹也显著降低了远端血流速度(从左侧收缩期速度12.5厘米/秒降至7.3厘米/秒,右侧收缩期速度从9.5厘米/秒降至)。12名男性中有10名对坎宁安夹给予了正面评价;12名男性中有2名对C3给予了正面评价;无人对U型夹给予正面评价。
坎宁安装置是最有效的,也是用户最能接受的,但也导致所有男性的收缩期速度降低。在舒适压力下使用时,没有一种装置能完全消除漏尿。对于有认知能力的男性,需要进行个性化指导,以确保正确使用、舒适度和贴合度。