• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

相似文献

1
Stemming the tide of mild to moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence: A retrospective comparison of transobturator male slings and the artificial urinary sphincter.遏制前列腺切除术后轻至中度尿失禁的趋势:经闭孔男性吊带与人工尿道括约肌的回顾性比较
Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Jul;8(7-8):273-7. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2108.
2
Artificial urinary sphincter significantly better than fixed sling for moderate post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a propensity score-matched study.人工尿括约肌在治疗前列腺切除术后中度压力性尿失禁方面明显优于固定吊带:一项倾向评分匹配研究。
BJU Int. 2021 Feb;127(2):229-237. doi: 10.1111/bju.15197. Epub 2020 Aug 26.
3
Outcomes of a Series of Patients with Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence Treated with an Adjustable Transobturator Male System or Artificial Urinary Sphincter.一系列采用可调式经肛男性吊带系统或人工尿道括约肌治疗前列腺切除术后尿失禁患者的结局。
Adv Ther. 2021 Jan;38(1):678-690. doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01563-z. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
4
Prior male sling does not affect outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter.先前的男性吊带术不影响人工尿道括约肌的结果。
BJU Int. 2024 May;133(5):564-569. doi: 10.1111/bju.16282. Epub 2024 Jan 20.
5
Comparison of complication rates related to male urethral slings and artificial urinary sphincters for urinary incontinence: national multi-institutional analysis of ACS-NSQIP database.男性尿道悬吊带术与人工尿道括约肌治疗尿失禁的并发症发生率比较:基于美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS-NSQIP)数据库的全国多机构分析
Int Urol Nephrol. 2016 Oct;48(10):1571-6. doi: 10.1007/s11255-016-1347-3. Epub 2016 Jul 14.
6
Comparing Argus sling and artificial urinary sphincter in patients with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence.比较阿格斯吊带与人工尿道括约肌治疗前列腺切除术后中度尿失禁患者的疗效。
J Exerc Rehabil. 2014 Oct 31;10(5):337-42. doi: 10.12965/jer.140152. eCollection 2014 Oct.
7
A national study of artificial urinary sphincter and male sling implantation after radical prostatectomy in England.英格兰行根治性前列腺切除术患者行人工尿道括约肌和男性吊带植入术的全国性研究。
BJU Int. 2020 Mar;125(3):467-475. doi: 10.1111/bju.14955. Epub 2020 Jan 16.
8
Comparison of adjustable male slings and artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of male urinary incontinence: a retrospective analysis of patient selection and postoperative continence status.可调式男性吊带与人工尿道括约肌治疗男性尿失禁的比较:基于患者选择和术后控尿状况的回顾性分析。
World J Urol. 2019 Jul;37(7):1415-1420. doi: 10.1007/s00345-018-2523-0. Epub 2018 Oct 19.
9
Factors contributing to treatment outcomes of post-prostatectomy incontinence surgery for the selection of the proper surgical procedure for individual patients: A single-center experience.前列腺癌根治术后尿失禁手术治疗效果的影响因素:为每位患者选择合适手术方法的单中心经验。
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Aug;37(6):1978-1987. doi: 10.1002/nau.23543. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
10
Comparison of outcomes for adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter after previous artificial urinary sphincter erosion.既往人工尿道括约肌侵蚀后可调节球部尿道男性吊带与人工尿道括约肌的疗效比较
Urology. 2009 Jun;73(6):1363-7. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.10.073. Epub 2009 Apr 18.

引用本文的文献

1
Male sling versus artificial urinary sphincter for the treatment of incontinence after prostate surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.男性吊带术与人工尿道括约肌治疗前列腺切除术后尿失禁的系统评价及Meta分析
Transl Androl Urol. 2024 Aug 31;13(8):1416-1424. doi: 10.21037/tau-24-107. Epub 2024 Aug 23.
2
Artificial Urinary Sphincter Is Better Than Slings for Moderate Male Stress Urinary Incontinence With Acceptable Complication Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.对于中度男性压力性尿失禁,人工尿道括约肌在并发症发生率可接受的情况下优于吊带:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Front Surg. 2022 Feb 9;9:841555. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.841555. eCollection 2022.
3
SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE.前列腺切除术后尿失禁的外科治疗
Eur Med J Urol. 2016 Apr;4(1):75-80.
4
Preoperative pad usage is independently associated with failure of non-adjustable male trans-obturator slings in otherwise well-selected patients.在其他方面经过精心挑选的患者中,术前使用护垫与不可调节男性经闭孔吊带手术失败独立相关。
Can Urol Assoc J. 2019 Apr;13(4):120-124. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5468. Epub 2018 Sep 27.

本文引用的文献

1
Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a review.前列腺切除术后尿失禁的人工尿道括约肌:综述
Int J Urol. 2014 Jun;21(6):536-43. doi: 10.1111/iju.12392. Epub 2014 Feb 16.
2
The impact of an antibiotic coating on the artificial urinary sphincter infection rate.抗生素涂层对人工尿失禁括约肌感染率的影响。
J Urol. 2013 Jul;190(1):113-7. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2013.01.015. Epub 2013 Jan 9.
3
Treatment of postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence with the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling suspension: 3-year follow-up.经闭孔后尿道中段吊带悬吊带治疗前列腺切除术后男性尿失禁:3 年随访。
Eur Urol. 2012 Jul;62(1):140-5. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.038. Epub 2012 Feb 25.
4
The male sling for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review of contemporary sling designs and outcomes.男性前列腺切除术后尿失禁吊带:当代吊带设计和结果的综述。
BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):328-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.10502.x. Epub 2011 Oct 17.
5
Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review of surgical treatment options.前列腺切除术后尿失禁:手术治疗选择的综述。
BJU Int. 2011 Apr;107 Suppl 3:7-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10052.x.
6
Mid-term results for the retroluminar transobturator sling suspension for stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy.前列腺切除术后压力性尿失禁经后路经闭孔吊带悬吊带的中期结果。
BJU Int. 2011 Jul;108(1):94-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09729.x. Epub 2010 Sep 30.
7
Can advance transobturator sling suspension cure male urinary postoperative stress incontinence?经阴道闭孔吊带悬吊术能否治愈男性术后压力性尿失禁?
J Urol. 2010 Apr;183(4):1459-63. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.013. Epub 2010 Feb 20.
8
Complications of the AdVance transobturator male sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence.Advance 经闭孔男性吊带治疗男性压力性尿失禁的并发症。
Urology. 2010 Jun;75(6):1494-8. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.012. Epub 2010 Feb 13.
9
Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence--what do patients choose?前列腺切除术后尿失禁:人工尿道括约肌与男性吊带术的对比——患者如何选择?
J Urol. 2009 Mar;181(3):1231-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2008.11.022. Epub 2009 Jan 18.
10
Urethral erosion of transobturator male sling.经闭孔男性吊带的尿道糜烂
Urology. 2009 Feb;73(2):443.e19-20. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2008.02.043. Epub 2008 Apr 9.

遏制前列腺切除术后轻至中度尿失禁的趋势:经闭孔男性吊带与人工尿道括约肌的回顾性比较

Stemming the tide of mild to moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence: A retrospective comparison of transobturator male slings and the artificial urinary sphincter.

作者信息

Hoy Nathan Y, Rourke Keith F

机构信息

Division of Urology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB.

出版信息

Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Jul;8(7-8):273-7. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2108.

DOI:10.5489/cuaj.2108
PMID:25210552
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4137013/
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

The AUS remains the gold standard treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), although most patients with mild-moderate PPI prefer a sling without strong evidence of procedural equivalence. This study compares outcomes of 2 procedures for the treatment of mild-moderate PPI.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 124 patients (76 transobturator sling, 48 AUS) with mild-moderate PPI requiring intervention over an 8-year period. The primary outcome was continence. Secondary outcomes included global patient satisfaction, improvement, and complication rates. Mild to moderate incontinence was defined as requiring ≤5 pads/day.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age (66.2 vs. 68.1 years; p = 0.17) or prostate cancer characteristics for slings and AUS, respectively. AUS patients had higher Charlson comorbidity scores and were more likely to have previous radiotherapy. Median length of follow up was 24 months for slings and 42 months for AUS. There was no difference in continence rates, 88.2% vs. 87.5% (p = 0.79), rate of improvement, 94.7% vs. 95.8% (p = 1.00), or patient satisfaction, 93.4% vs. 91.7% (p = 0.73), for slings and AUS, respectively. Complication rates were equivalent (19.7% vs. 16.7%; p = 1.00), though a significantly higher proportion of complications with AUS were Clavien Grade 3 (0% vs. 75%; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

For mild to moderate PPI there is no difference in continence, satisfaction, or improvement rates, between AUS and slings. AUS complications tend to be more severe. Our study supports the use of slings as first-line treatment for mild-moderate PPI.

摘要

引言

人工尿道括约肌(AUS)仍是前列腺切除术后尿失禁(PPI)的金标准治疗方法,尽管大多数轻中度PPI患者更倾向于使用吊带,但目前尚无强有力的证据表明这两种治疗方法在疗效上相当。本研究比较了两种治疗轻中度PPI的手术效果。

方法

回顾性分析了124例轻中度PPI患者(76例行经闭孔吊带术,48例行AUS植入术)在8年期间的治疗情况。主要观察指标为尿失禁控制情况。次要观察指标包括患者总体满意度、症状改善情况及并发症发生率。轻至中度尿失禁定义为每天使用尿垫≤5片。

结果

吊带术组和AUS植入术组患者的年龄(分别为66.2岁和68.1岁;p = 0.17)以及前列腺癌特征无显著差异。AUS植入术组患者的Charlson合并症评分更高,且更有可能接受过放疗。吊带术组的中位随访时间为24个月,AUS植入术组为42个月。吊带术组和AUS植入术组的尿失禁控制率分别为88.2%和87.5%(p = 0.79),症状改善率分别为94.7%和95.8%(p = 1.00),患者满意度分别为93.4%和91.7%(p = 0.73),均无显著差异。并发症发生率相当(分别为19.7%和16.7%;p = 1.00),不过AUS植入术组中Clavien 3级并发症的比例显著更高(分别为0%和75%;p = 0.006)。

结论

对于轻至中度PPI,AUS和吊带术在尿失禁控制、患者满意度及症状改善率方面无差异。AUS的并发症往往更严重。我们的研究支持将吊带术作为轻中度PPI的一线治疗方法。