4.4 Article

Bladder Neck Sling Suspension During Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy to Improve Early Return of Urinary Continence: A Comparative Analysis

期刊

UROLOGY
卷 83, 期 3, 页码 632-639

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2013.09.059

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23592376] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE To present our experience of a novel technique, bladder neck sling suspension technique, in patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and evaluate its efficacy for improving early continence outcomes after RARP in comparison with that of the standard technique. METHODS Fifty-seven consecutive patients underwent RARP between August 2011 and April 2012. We performed RARP with and without bladder neck sling suspension technique for 27 (sling group) and 30 (nonsling group) patients, respectively, and compared the urinary outcome between the groups. Both subjective and objective assessments of urinary incontinence were performed before and after RARP. RESULTS The International Prostate Symptom Score (P <.05) and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (P <.05) in the sling group were significantly lower, and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite urinary incontinence score (P <.05) in the sling group was higher than those in nonsling group, 4 weeks after RARP. In addition, mean pad weight gain on 1-hour pad test in the sling group was significantly smaller than that in the nonsling group, 4 weeks after RARP (P <.05). Both patient perception and objective data of urinary incontinence 4 weeks after RARP were better in the sling group than in the nonsling group. Valsalva maneuver during cystography demonstrated that the mean posterior ure-throvesical angle in the sling group was smaller than that in the nonsling group (P <.001). CONCLUSION Bladder neck sling suspension technique is a simple and feasible procedure in RARP and can improve the early return of continence after RARP, although additional larger studies are required to confirm this finding. UROLOGY 83: 632-640, 2014. (C) 2014 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据