欧洲男性压力性尿失禁手术前瞻性多中心登记 SATURN 1 年后的结果。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY European urology focus Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.euf.2024.04.003
John Heesakkers , Frank Martens , Nikesh Thiruchelvam , Wim Witjes , Christien Caris , Joni Kats , Rizwan Hamid , Frank Van der Aa
{"title":"欧洲男性压力性尿失禁手术前瞻性多中心登记 SATURN 1 年后的结果。","authors":"John Heesakkers ,&nbsp;Frank Martens ,&nbsp;Nikesh Thiruchelvam ,&nbsp;Wim Witjes ,&nbsp;Christien Caris ,&nbsp;Joni Kats ,&nbsp;Rizwan Hamid ,&nbsp;Frank Van der Aa","doi":"10.1016/j.euf.2024.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>The European, prospective, multicenter SATURN registry was developed to analyze surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence. The primary objective is the cure rate during follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Efficacy, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and prognostic factors are being analyzed at various intervals during 10-yr follow-up. The results at 1-yr follow-up are presented here.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>The cohort included 1046 patients (mean age 70 yr) from 28 centers in nine countries. The main cause of incontinence was radical prostatectomy (83.5%), followed by radiotherapy (4.5%), endourological procedures (9.7%), neurogenic conditions (1.0%), and trauma (0.2%). Some 19.5% of the patients underwent at least one incontinence procedure before registry inclusion. A baseline pad test was performed in 64% of the patients (mean 525 g, range 3.5–3600), urodynamics in 66%, and cystoscopy in 80%. The main implants used were AMS800 (<em>n</em> = 684) and Advance (<em>n</em> = 210) devices, followed by Atoms (<em>n</em> = 63) Victo/Plus (<em>n</em> = 33), ProACT (<em>n</em> = 30), and others (<em>n</em> = 24). A total of 896 patients had 1-yr follow-up data, of whom 164 completed a 1-yr pad test. Self-reported complete incontinence rates at baseline by device were as follows: Advance, 17%; other slings, 33%; ProACT, 0%; AMS800, 49%; other sphincter prosthesis, 100%; and overall group, 44%. The corresponding 1-yr self-reported continence rates were 73%, 37%, 50%, 76%, 11%, and 68%. Some 32% of the patients were still incontinent. Overall, 132 patients had at least one revision. Among the 110 patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), 122 revisions were performed, while there were 29 revisions for the 22 patients with a sling or ProACT device. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form and EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels scores improved with all devices.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>AUS implants are used in cases with more severe incontinence and are associated with better outcomes but more revisions than the alternatives. Patients report that every improvement is important. Choices for procedures should be made on the basis of these considerations.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We collected data from 29 urology departments in Europe on surgical treatments for patients who suffer from incontinence during exercise, sneezing, and coughing. Results after 1 year show that an artificial urinary sphincter has the best outcomes overall and for patients with heavy urine loss. However, this surgery also requires more revisions. Patients report that every improvement in continence is important to them.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12160,"journal":{"name":"European urology focus","volume":"10 5","pages":"Pages 818-825"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Results at 1 Year from SATURN, A European, Prospective, Multicenter Registry for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery\",\"authors\":\"John Heesakkers ,&nbsp;Frank Martens ,&nbsp;Nikesh Thiruchelvam ,&nbsp;Wim Witjes ,&nbsp;Christien Caris ,&nbsp;Joni Kats ,&nbsp;Rizwan Hamid ,&nbsp;Frank Van der Aa\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.euf.2024.04.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objective</h3><div>The European, prospective, multicenter SATURN registry was developed to analyze surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence. The primary objective is the cure rate during follow-up.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Efficacy, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and prognostic factors are being analyzed at various intervals during 10-yr follow-up. The results at 1-yr follow-up are presented here.</div></div><div><h3>Key findings and limitations</h3><div>The cohort included 1046 patients (mean age 70 yr) from 28 centers in nine countries. The main cause of incontinence was radical prostatectomy (83.5%), followed by radiotherapy (4.5%), endourological procedures (9.7%), neurogenic conditions (1.0%), and trauma (0.2%). Some 19.5% of the patients underwent at least one incontinence procedure before registry inclusion. A baseline pad test was performed in 64% of the patients (mean 525 g, range 3.5–3600), urodynamics in 66%, and cystoscopy in 80%. The main implants used were AMS800 (<em>n</em> = 684) and Advance (<em>n</em> = 210) devices, followed by Atoms (<em>n</em> = 63) Victo/Plus (<em>n</em> = 33), ProACT (<em>n</em> = 30), and others (<em>n</em> = 24). A total of 896 patients had 1-yr follow-up data, of whom 164 completed a 1-yr pad test. Self-reported complete incontinence rates at baseline by device were as follows: Advance, 17%; other slings, 33%; ProACT, 0%; AMS800, 49%; other sphincter prosthesis, 100%; and overall group, 44%. The corresponding 1-yr self-reported continence rates were 73%, 37%, 50%, 76%, 11%, and 68%. Some 32% of the patients were still incontinent. Overall, 132 patients had at least one revision. Among the 110 patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), 122 revisions were performed, while there were 29 revisions for the 22 patients with a sling or ProACT device. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form and EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels scores improved with all devices.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions and clinical implications</h3><div>AUS implants are used in cases with more severe incontinence and are associated with better outcomes but more revisions than the alternatives. Patients report that every improvement is important. Choices for procedures should be made on the basis of these considerations.</div></div><div><h3>Patient summary</h3><div>We collected data from 29 urology departments in Europe on surgical treatments for patients who suffer from incontinence during exercise, sneezing, and coughing. Results after 1 year show that an artificial urinary sphincter has the best outcomes overall and for patients with heavy urine loss. However, this surgery also requires more revisions. Patients report that every improvement in continence is important to them.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12160,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European urology focus\",\"volume\":\"10 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 818-825\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European urology focus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405456924000555\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European urology focus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405456924000555","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的欧洲前瞻性多中心 SATURN 登记旨在分析男性压力性尿失禁的手术装置。主要目标是随访期间的治愈率。方法在 10 年随访期间的不同时间段对疗效、并发症、患者报告结果和预后因素进行分析。主要发现和局限性队列包括来自 9 个国家 28 个中心的 1046 名患者(平均年龄 70 岁)。尿失禁的主要原因是根治性前列腺切除术(83.5%),其次是放射治疗(4.5%)、腔内手术(9.7%)、神经源性疾病(1.0%)和外伤(0.2%)。约19.5%的患者在纳入登记前至少接受过一次尿失禁手术。64%的患者进行了基线垫测试(平均 525 克,范围 3.5-3600),66%的患者进行了尿动力学检查,80%的患者进行了膀胱镜检查。使用的主要植入物是 AMS800(684 例)和 Advance(210 例),其次是 Atoms(63 例)、Victo/Plus(33 例)、ProACT(30 例)和其他(24 例)。共有 896 名患者获得了 1 年的随访数据,其中 164 人完成了 1 年的尿垫测试。自我报告的基线完全失禁率按设备分列如下:Advance:17%;其他吊带:33%;ProACT:0%;AMS800:49%;其他括约肌假体:100%;总体组:44%。相应的 1 年自我报告失禁率分别为 73%、37%、50%、76%、11% 和 68%。约 32% 的患者仍然大小便失禁。总体而言,132 名患者至少进行过一次翻修。在使用人工尿道括约肌(AUS)的 110 名患者中,进行了 122 次翻修,而在使用吊带或 ProACT 装置的 22 名患者中,进行了 29 次翻修。国际尿失禁咨询问卷简表和 EuroQol 5 维 5 级评分在使用所有装置后均有所改善。结论和临床意义人工尿道括约肌植入物适用于尿失禁较严重的病例,与其他装置相比,其疗效更好,但翻修次数更多。患者认为每一次改善都很重要。患者摘要我们从欧洲 29 个泌尿科收集了有关运动、打喷嚏和咳嗽时尿失禁患者手术治疗的数据。1年后的结果显示,人工尿道括约肌的总体疗效最好,对尿失禁严重的患者也是如此。不过,这种手术也需要更多的修改。患者表示,尿失禁的每一次改善对他们来说都非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Results at 1 Year from SATURN, A European, Prospective, Multicenter Registry for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery

Background and objective

The European, prospective, multicenter SATURN registry was developed to analyze surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence. The primary objective is the cure rate during follow-up.

Methods

Efficacy, complications, patient-reported outcomes, and prognostic factors are being analyzed at various intervals during 10-yr follow-up. The results at 1-yr follow-up are presented here.

Key findings and limitations

The cohort included 1046 patients (mean age 70 yr) from 28 centers in nine countries. The main cause of incontinence was radical prostatectomy (83.5%), followed by radiotherapy (4.5%), endourological procedures (9.7%), neurogenic conditions (1.0%), and trauma (0.2%). Some 19.5% of the patients underwent at least one incontinence procedure before registry inclusion. A baseline pad test was performed in 64% of the patients (mean 525 g, range 3.5–3600), urodynamics in 66%, and cystoscopy in 80%. The main implants used were AMS800 (n = 684) and Advance (n = 210) devices, followed by Atoms (n = 63) Victo/Plus (n = 33), ProACT (n = 30), and others (n = 24). A total of 896 patients had 1-yr follow-up data, of whom 164 completed a 1-yr pad test. Self-reported complete incontinence rates at baseline by device were as follows: Advance, 17%; other slings, 33%; ProACT, 0%; AMS800, 49%; other sphincter prosthesis, 100%; and overall group, 44%. The corresponding 1-yr self-reported continence rates were 73%, 37%, 50%, 76%, 11%, and 68%. Some 32% of the patients were still incontinent. Overall, 132 patients had at least one revision. Among the 110 patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), 122 revisions were performed, while there were 29 revisions for the 22 patients with a sling or ProACT device. International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form and EuroQol 5-dimensions 5-levels scores improved with all devices.

Conclusions and clinical implications

AUS implants are used in cases with more severe incontinence and are associated with better outcomes but more revisions than the alternatives. Patients report that every improvement is important. Choices for procedures should be made on the basis of these considerations.

Patient summary

We collected data from 29 urology departments in Europe on surgical treatments for patients who suffer from incontinence during exercise, sneezing, and coughing. Results after 1 year show that an artificial urinary sphincter has the best outcomes overall and for patients with heavy urine loss. However, this surgery also requires more revisions. Patients report that every improvement in continence is important to them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European urology focus
European urology focus Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
274
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: European Urology Focus is a new sister journal to European Urology and an official publication of the European Association of Urology (EAU). EU Focus will publish original articles, opinion piece editorials and topical reviews on a wide range of urological issues such as oncology, functional urology, reconstructive urology, laparoscopy, robotic surgery, endourology, female urology, andrology, paediatric urology and sexual medicine. The editorial team welcome basic and translational research articles in the field of urological diseases. Authors may be solicited by the Editor directly. All submitted manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by a panel of experts before being considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Beyond Anesthesia: A Mini Review of Virtual Reality as an Adjunct in Urological Procedures. Incidence and Outcomes of Secondary Bladder Cancer Following Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Prostate-specific Membrane Antigen-radioguided Surgery in an EMBARK-like Cohort of Patients with Oligorecurrent Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Delay in Systemic Treatment. Enhancing the Immunogenicity of Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab with Live Bacterial Supplementation in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. The Human Urinary Microbiome and Its Potential Role in Urinary Tract Infections.
×
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