人工尿道括约肌放置的“最小触摸”技术:描述和结果

IF 1 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Turkish journal of urology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5152/tud.2023.22136
Matthew J Ziegelmann, Kevin J Hebert, Brian J Linder, Laureano J Rangel, Daniel S Elliott
{"title":"人工尿道括约肌放置的“最小触摸”技术:描述和结果","authors":"Matthew J Ziegelmann,&nbsp;Kevin J Hebert,&nbsp;Brian J Linder,&nbsp;Laureano J Rangel,&nbsp;Daniel S Elliott","doi":"10.5152/tud.2023.22136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to describe \"minimal-touch\" technique for primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and evaluate early device outcomes by comparing it with a historical cohort.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We identified patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution from 1983 to 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to identify the rate of postoperative device infection in patients who underwent minimal touch versus those who underwent our traditional technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>526/2601 total procedures (20%) were performed using our \"minimal-touch\" approach, including 271/1554 patients (17%) who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement over the study period. Around 2.3% of patients experienced device infection after artificial urinary sphincter procedures. In the \"minimal-touch\" era, 3/526 patients (0.7%) experienced device infection, including 1/271 (0.4%) of those with primary artificial urinary sphincter placement. In comparison, 46/2075 patients (2.7%) experienced device infection using the historical approach, with 29/1283 (2.3%) of primary artificial urinary sphincter placements resulting in removal for infection. Notably, 90% of device infections occurred within the first 6 months after primary placement. The difference in cumulative incidence of device infections at 12 months did not meet our threshold for statistical significance for either the total cohort of all AUS procedures (primary and revision) or the sub-group of only those patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement (Gray K-sample test; P=.13 and .21, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The \"minimal-touch\" approach for artificial urinary sphincter placement represents an easy-to-implement modification with potential implications on device outcomes. While early results appear promising, longer-term follow-up with greater statistical power is needed to determine whether this approach will lower the infection risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":23366,"journal":{"name":"Turkish journal of urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fe/06/tju-49-1-40.PMC10081129.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The \\\"Minimal-Touch\\\" Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew J Ziegelmann,&nbsp;Kevin J Hebert,&nbsp;Brian J Linder,&nbsp;Laureano J Rangel,&nbsp;Daniel S Elliott\",\"doi\":\"10.5152/tud.2023.22136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The study aimed to describe \\\"minimal-touch\\\" technique for primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and evaluate early device outcomes by comparing it with a historical cohort.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We identified patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution from 1983 to 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to identify the rate of postoperative device infection in patients who underwent minimal touch versus those who underwent our traditional technique.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>526/2601 total procedures (20%) were performed using our \\\"minimal-touch\\\" approach, including 271/1554 patients (17%) who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement over the study period. Around 2.3% of patients experienced device infection after artificial urinary sphincter procedures. In the \\\"minimal-touch\\\" era, 3/526 patients (0.7%) experienced device infection, including 1/271 (0.4%) of those with primary artificial urinary sphincter placement. In comparison, 46/2075 patients (2.7%) experienced device infection using the historical approach, with 29/1283 (2.3%) of primary artificial urinary sphincter placements resulting in removal for infection. Notably, 90% of device infections occurred within the first 6 months after primary placement. The difference in cumulative incidence of device infections at 12 months did not meet our threshold for statistical significance for either the total cohort of all AUS procedures (primary and revision) or the sub-group of only those patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement (Gray K-sample test; P=.13 and .21, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The \\\"minimal-touch\\\" approach for artificial urinary sphincter placement represents an easy-to-implement modification with potential implications on device outcomes. While early results appear promising, longer-term follow-up with greater statistical power is needed to determine whether this approach will lower the infection risk.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23366,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish journal of urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fe/06/tju-49-1-40.PMC10081129.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish journal of urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22136\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish journal of urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在描述原发性人工尿道括约肌放置的“最小接触”技术,并通过与历史队列的比较来评估早期装置的结果。材料和方法:我们确定了1983年至2020年在我们机构接受原发性人工尿道括约肌置入术的患者。进行统计分析,以确定接受最小接触的患者与接受我们传统技术的患者的术后器械感染率。结果:使用我们的“最小接触”方法共进行了526/2601次手术(20%),其中271/1554名患者(17%)在研究期间接受了初次人工尿道括约肌置入术。大约2.3%的患者在人工尿道括约肌手术后出现装置感染。在“最小接触”时代,3/526名患者(0.7%)经历了装置感染,其中1/271名患者(0.4%)接受了原发性人工尿道括约肌置入术。相比之下,使用历史方法的46/2075名患者(2.7%)经历了装置感染,其中29/1283名(2.3%)的原发性人工尿道括约肌植入术因感染而被切除。值得注意的是,90%的装置感染发生在初次植入后的前6个月内。12个月时装置感染累积发生率的差异不符合我们对所有AUS手术(初次和翻修)的总队列或仅接受初次人工尿道括约肌置入术的患者亚组的统计显著性阈值(Gray K-sample检验;P = .分别为.13和.21)。结论:人工尿道括约肌放置的“最小接触”方法是一种易于实施的改良方法,对装置的效果有潜在影响。虽然早期结果看起来很有希望,但需要更具统计能力的长期随访来确定这种方法是否会降低感染风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
The "Minimal-Touch" Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes.

Objective: The study aimed to describe "minimal-touch" technique for primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and evaluate early device outcomes by comparing it with a historical cohort.

Materials and methods: We identified patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution from 1983 to 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to identify the rate of postoperative device infection in patients who underwent minimal touch versus those who underwent our traditional technique.

Results: 526/2601 total procedures (20%) were performed using our "minimal-touch" approach, including 271/1554 patients (17%) who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement over the study period. Around 2.3% of patients experienced device infection after artificial urinary sphincter procedures. In the "minimal-touch" era, 3/526 patients (0.7%) experienced device infection, including 1/271 (0.4%) of those with primary artificial urinary sphincter placement. In comparison, 46/2075 patients (2.7%) experienced device infection using the historical approach, with 29/1283 (2.3%) of primary artificial urinary sphincter placements resulting in removal for infection. Notably, 90% of device infections occurred within the first 6 months after primary placement. The difference in cumulative incidence of device infections at 12 months did not meet our threshold for statistical significance for either the total cohort of all AUS procedures (primary and revision) or the sub-group of only those patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement (Gray K-sample test; P=.13 and .21, respectively).

Conclusion: The "minimal-touch" approach for artificial urinary sphincter placement represents an easy-to-implement modification with potential implications on device outcomes. While early results appear promising, longer-term follow-up with greater statistical power is needed to determine whether this approach will lower the infection risk.

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
Turkish journal of urology
Turkish journal of urology Medicine-Urology
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: The aim of the Turkish Journal of Urology is to contribute to the literature by publishing scientifically high-quality research articles as well as reviews, editorials, letters to the editor and case reports. The journal’s target audience includes, urology specialists, medical specialty fellows and other specialists and practitioners who are interested in the field of urology.
期刊最新文献
Infertility as a Proxy of Men's Health: Still a Long Way to Go. Strategies in Infertile Azoospermic Patients with Negative Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction Surgery. General Management of Female Sexual Dysfunction for Urologists. Strategies to Increase Testosterone in Men Seeking Fertility. Do Sleep Disorders Influence the Prognosis and the Response to the Therapy in Enuretic Children?
×
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