Chughtai Bilal, Sedrakyan Art, Isaacs Abby J, Mao Jialin, Lee Richard, Te Alexis, Kaplan Steven
Department of Urology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Department of Public Health, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York.
Neurourol Urodyn. 2016 Jan;35(1):74-80. doi: 10.1002/nau.22683. Epub 2014 Oct 18.
We explored re-interventions and short and long term adverse events associated with procedures for male incontinence among Medicare beneficiaries.
All inpatient and outpatient claims for a simple random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2000-2011 were queried to identify patients of interest. All male patients with an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis code for stress incontinence or mixed incontinence were included. Artificial urinary sphincter recipients, patients who underwent a sling operation and those receiving an injection of a bulking agent were identified with Current Procedure Terminology (CPT-4) and ICD-9 Procedure Codes.
The entire cohort of 1,246 patients were operated on between 2001 and 2011. 34.9% of them received an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), 28.7% with a bulking agent, and 36.4% with a sling. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics or comorbidities between the treatment groups, except that more sling patients were obese (P = 0.006) and fewer bulk patients had diabetes (P = 0.007). There are, however, significant changes in procedures selected over time (P < 0.001). In the first year and over the entire follow-up after surgery, patients treated with bulking agents had the most subsequent interventions (40.1% and 52.9%), followed by sling (10.4% and 15.5%), and AUS (2.3% and 20%) (P < 0.001). Post-operative and 90 day complications were low.
All three treatments seem to be safe among Medicare beneficiaries with multiple comorbidities. The urological, infectious, and neurological complication occurrences were low.
我们探讨了医疗保险受益人中与男性尿失禁治疗相关的再次干预措施以及短期和长期不良事件。
查询了2000 - 2011年医疗保险受益人的简单随机样本的所有住院和门诊理赔记录,以确定感兴趣的患者。纳入所有患有国际疾病分类第九版(ICD - 9)压力性尿失禁或混合性尿失禁诊断代码的男性患者。通过当前手术操作术语(CPT - 4)和ICD - 9手术代码识别接受人工尿道括约肌植入的患者、接受吊带手术的患者以及接受填充剂注射的患者。
1246例患者在2001年至2011年间接受了手术。其中34.9%接受了人工尿道括约肌(AUS)植入,28.7%接受了填充剂注射,36.4%接受了吊带手术。治疗组之间在人口统计学或合并症方面无统计学显著差异,但吊带手术患者中肥胖者更多(P = 0.006),接受填充剂注射的患者中糖尿病患者更少(P = 0.007)。然而,随着时间的推移,所选手术方式有显著变化(P < 0.001)。在术后第一年及整个随访期间,接受填充剂注射治疗的患者后续干预最多(分别为40.1%和52.9%),其次是吊带手术(分别为10.4%和15.5%),AUS植入患者最少(分别为2.3%和20%)(P < 0.001)。术后及90天并发症发生率较低。
对于患有多种合并症的医疗保险受益人,这三种治疗方法似乎都是安全的。泌尿系统、感染性和神经性并发症的发生率较低。