Incontinence Research - Urinary Incontinence, Bladder Control, Treatment, Causes

Incontinence Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Incontinence, including details on urinary incontinence, bladder control, treatment, causes.


Incontinence Research Today

Home

View Latest Issue

Information About Incontinence

Books on Incontinence

Advertising in Research Today

View Other Research Today Publications



Suburethral sling at the time of radical prostatectomy in patients at high risk of postoperative incontinence.

Westney OL, Scott S, Wood C, Eddings T, Johnson MM, Taylor JM, McGuire E, Pisters LL

Department of Urology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the insertion of a urethral sling at the time of radical prostatectomy (RP) in men at high risk of urinary incontinence after RP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1998 and 2000, 49 of 871 men undergoing RP at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, were identified as at risk of urinary incontinence after RP, based on their age (>65 years), previous transurethral resection of the prostate, previous radiation therapy, clinical stage, and obesity (body mass index of > or = 30 kg/m2). These 49 men had a suburethral sling inserted at the time of RP, and incontinence after surgery was evaluated using pad counts and patient-completed questionnaires. Retrospectively, incontinence rates and complications in these men were compared with 122 men also at high risk of urinary incontinence after RP who did not have a sling inserted at the time of RP (control group). RESULTS: In all, 29 of 49 men (59%) with a suburethral sling reported using either no pad or one pad per day for urinary leakage at 6 months after RP, compared with 83 of 118 (70%) in the control group. At 12 months after RP, 34 of 46 (74%) men with a suburethral sling reported using no or one pad, compared with 75 of 89 (84%) in the control group. Seventeen (35%) men were treated for urethral stricture in the sling group and 17 (14%) in the control group (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The urethral sling modification concurrent with RP is feasible, but does not decrease incontinence compared with a similar group of high-risk patients who did not have the sling modification. In addition, the stricture rate in the sling group was unacceptably high. Currently, we do not recommend the use of a urethral sling at the time of RP.

Published 1 August 2006 in BJU Int, 98(2): 308-13.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

Place a permanent text-link or advertisement here for just US$15.

© 2004-2008 Incontinence Research Today. All Rights Reserved.



Incontinence Research Today Archive:

Volume 1 (2004)
  Issue 1 (November)
  Issue 2 (December)

Volume 2 (2005)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 3 (2006)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 4 (2007)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)
  Issue 11 (November)
  Issue 12 (December)

Volume 5 (2008)
  Issue 1 (January)
  Issue 2 (February)
  Issue 3 (March)
  Issue 4 (April)
  Issue 5 (May)
  Issue 6 (June)
  Issue 7 (July)
  Issue 8 (August)
  Issue 9 (September)
  Issue 10 (October)



Incontinence Books

Anorectal Malformations in Children

Anorectal Malformations in Children