Management of iatrogenic urethral foreign body after mid-urethral sling A literature review.

Amélie Bazinet, Sylvia Weis, François-Xavier Madec, Bernard Boillot
{"title":"Management of iatrogenic urethral foreign body after mid-urethral sling A literature review.","authors":"Amélie Bazinet,&nbsp;Sylvia Weis,&nbsp;François-Xavier Madec,&nbsp;Bernard Boillot","doi":"10.5489/cuaj.8293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Urethral mesh perforation is a rare complication of mid-urethral sling resulting in a lack of clear management guidelines. Thus, we aimed to determine management options and their respective outcomes in terms of erosion resolution and continence.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature review was performed by extracting studies from the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from January 1996 to December 1, 2022. Only French and English language studies were included. A total of 227 papers were screened and assessed for eligibility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-eight studies were included in the final analysis, for a total of 224 patients. Treatment options consisted of conservative, endoscopic, transurethral, and transvaginal approaches. Conservative treatment was associated with a 100% risk of persistence or recurrence of urethral perforation, while the failure rates for endoscopic, transurethral, and transvaginal approaches were 33%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively. Most patients suffered from stress urinary incontinence after reconstructive management. The most common symptoms at the time of presentation were overactive bladder and pain. The mean time between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis was 10 months. About half of the urethral mesh perforations were diagnosed within the first years after the initial sling insertion.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Multiple management options for sling penetration of the urethra have been described in the literature. Transvaginal sling resection with consecutive tissue interposition seems to carry the lowest risk of erosion recurrence; however, all treatment options are associated with a high relapse rate for stress urinary incontinence.</p>","PeriodicalId":9574,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada","volume":" ","pages":"E269-E280"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10544405/pdf/cuaj-9-e269.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Urethral mesh perforation is a rare complication of mid-urethral sling resulting in a lack of clear management guidelines. Thus, we aimed to determine management options and their respective outcomes in terms of erosion resolution and continence.

Methods: A literature review was performed by extracting studies from the PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from January 1996 to December 1, 2022. Only French and English language studies were included. A total of 227 papers were screened and assessed for eligibility.

Results: Forty-eight studies were included in the final analysis, for a total of 224 patients. Treatment options consisted of conservative, endoscopic, transurethral, and transvaginal approaches. Conservative treatment was associated with a 100% risk of persistence or recurrence of urethral perforation, while the failure rates for endoscopic, transurethral, and transvaginal approaches were 33%, 7.5%, and 7%, respectively. Most patients suffered from stress urinary incontinence after reconstructive management. The most common symptoms at the time of presentation were overactive bladder and pain. The mean time between the onset of symptoms and diagnosis was 10 months. About half of the urethral mesh perforations were diagnosed within the first years after the initial sling insertion.

Conclusions: Multiple management options for sling penetration of the urethra have been described in the literature. Transvaginal sling resection with consecutive tissue interposition seems to carry the lowest risk of erosion recurrence; however, all treatment options are associated with a high relapse rate for stress urinary incontinence.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中尿道吊带术后医源性尿道异物的处理:文献综述。
导语:尿道网片穿孔是尿道中段吊带术的一种罕见并发症,导致缺乏明确的管理指南。因此,我们旨在确定管理方案及其各自在侵蚀解决和控制方面的结果。方法:通过从PubMed、Cochrane和Google Scholar中提取1996年1月至2022年12月1日的研究进行文献综述。只包括法语和英语学习。共对227篇论文进行了资格筛选和评估。结果:48项研究被纳入最终分析,共有224名患者。治疗方案包括保守治疗、内镜治疗、经尿道治疗和经阴道治疗。保守治疗与尿道穿孔持续或复发的风险100%相关,而内镜、经尿道和经阴道入路的失败率分别为33%、7.5%和7%。大多数患者在重建治疗后出现压力性尿失禁。发病时最常见的症状是膀胱过度活动和疼痛。从出现症状到确诊的平均时间为10个月。大约一半的尿道网片穿孔是在首次插入吊带后的头几年内诊断出来的。结论:文献中描述了吊带穿透尿道的多种治疗方案。经阴道吊带切除并连续插入组织似乎具有最低的侵蚀复发风险;然而,所有的治疗方案都与压力性尿失禁的高复发率有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Treatment modalities for small-sized urolithiases and their impact on health-related quality of life. Pilot study to assess the feasibility of self-administered, low-dose methoxyflurane for cystoscopic procedures. An analysis of benign prostatic hyperplasia surgical treatment reimbursement trends across Canada: Examining provincial changes over the recent decade with comparison to cost of living changes. Restricted access and advanced disease in post-pandemic testicular cancer. Comparison of outcomes in patients with and without neurologic diseases undergoing holmium laser enucleation of the prostate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1