首页> 外文期刊>International urogynecology journal and pelvic floor dysfunction >Management of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling: tape tightening or repeat sling?
【24h】

Management of recurrent stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling: tape tightening or repeat sling?

机译:中毒吊索失败后复发尿失禁的管理:胶带收紧或重复吊带?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

This study was performed to compare surgical outcomes of repeat midurethral sling (MUS) with those of tape shortening in patients who underwent failed initial MUS.We assessed 66 patients who underwent failed initial MUS and a second surgical procedure because of recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI), including 36 who underwent repeat MUS and 30 who underwent tape shortening. All patients were followed up for at least 12 months after second surgery. Efficacy was measured by cure rates on the Sandvik questionnaire. Safety was evaluated by assessing maximal urine flow rate, postvoid residual urine volume, and procedure-related complications.The cure rate was significantly higher in patients who underwent repeat MUS (72.2 % vs. 46.7 %, p = 0.034). Among patients with a Valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP) of <60 cmH(2)O or SUI severity of at least moderate, the cure rate was significantly higher in those who underwent repeat MUS than in those who underwent tape shortening (76.5 % vs. 40.0 % and 79.2 % vs. 43.8 %, respectively). Univariate analysis of preoperative factors demonstrated that there were no risk factors associated with the cure rates in either group. One patient who underwent repeat MUS required tape cutting, and one who underwent tape shortening experienced mesh erosion. A limitation of this study is that it was not a randomized, controlled study.Repeat MUS has a higher cure rate than does tape shortening in surgical treatment of patient with persistent or recurrent SUI, especially those with low VLPP or high SUI grade.
机译:进行该研究以比较重复中毒吊带(MUS)的手术结果与初始MUS失败的患者缩短的胶带缩短。我们评估了66名接受初始MU失败的患者和第二次外科手术,因为反复性或持续的压力尿失禁(SUI),包括36人接受了重复的肌肉和30岁的人接受过卷曲的缩短。在第二次手术后,所有患者均在前至少12个月。肌肉率在Sandvik调查问卷上测量疗效。通过评估最大尿液流速,后异尿尿量和程序相关的并发症来评估安全性。在重复慢率的患者中,治愈率显着高(72.2%与46.7%,P = 0.034)。在valsalva泄漏点压力(VLPP)的患者中<60 cmh(2)o或sui严重程度至少适中,治疗率在接受重复肌肉的人中显着提高,而不是在接受胶带缩短的人(76.5%VS) 。40.0%和79.2%与43.8%)。术前因子的单变量分析表明,没有与任一组的固化率相关的危险因素。一名患者经历了重复的肌肉所需的胶带切割,以及一个接受胶带缩短的薄膜侵蚀的人。本研究的局限性是,它不是随机的,受控研究。再次治愈率较高,而不是持续或复发性血管患者的手术治疗胶带较高,尤其是具有低VLPP或高苏级的胶带。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号