Abdominal vs Sub-Inguinal Placement of Pressure Regulating Balloon for Artificial Urinary Sphincter
To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion using an abdominal versus a sub-inguinal counterincision for pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement. This was a retrospective review of all AUS placements by a single surgeon from 2010-2020. Demog...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2022-12, Vol.170, p.216-220 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion using an abdominal versus a sub-inguinal counterincision for pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement.
This was a retrospective review of all AUS placements by a single surgeon from 2010-2020. Demographic, clinical, and surgical details were obtained from chart review. The cohorts were divided by PRB placement technique (sub-inguinal, abdominal, and attempted sub-inguinal converted intra-operatively to abdominal [“conversion group”]).
There were 182 AUS devices placed. The sub-inguinal approach was successfully completed in 132/144 (92%) and converted to abdominal PRB placement in 12/144 (8.3%). The risk of conversion was not increased by prior laparoscopically-assisted robotic prostatectomy (LRP) or radiotherapy (RT). Median operative time was 62, 75, and 77 minutes for sub-inguinal, abdominal, and conversion groups, respectively ( P = 0.30). Time to device activation was 25.0, 32.0, and 37.5 days for abdominal, sub-inguinal, and conversion groups, respectively (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0090-4295 1527-9995 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.urology.2022.07.034 |