Objectives: to assess morbidity, effectiveness and quality of life (QoL) of implant of Silimed periurethral constrictor (PC) in a consecutive series of patients who had stress urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Material and Methods: a prospective non-randomized study designed on patients who underwent implant of Silimed PC. Primary end point was postoperative morbidity and secondary end points were effectiveness of implant and QoL. We performed a sub-analysis of men who received previous radiation and we compared the subpopulation with radiation-naïve patients. Results: nineteen patients (31.6%) received pelvic radiation therapy prior implant. All procedures were completed successfully with median operative time of 55 min. We recorded 47 (78.3%) postoperative complications in 30 men. Twenty-three men (38.3%) developed urethral erosion at median follow-up of 27.5 months, and 1 man (1.9%) had rectourethral fistula at 2 months. Risk of urethral erosion increased significantly among patients who received radiation (63.1 vs. 26.8%; p < 0.001). In 12 cases (20%), we recorded malfunctioning of the reservoir requiring replacement. Conclusion: The implant of Silimed device is not safe due to a high risk of urethral erosion. Careful patient selection and detailed counseling are mandatory when considering the implant of PC in adult patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of the Implant of a Periurethral Constrictor for Stress Urinary Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy

Terrone, Carlo
2016

Abstract

Objectives: to assess morbidity, effectiveness and quality of life (QoL) of implant of Silimed periurethral constrictor (PC) in a consecutive series of patients who had stress urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Material and Methods: a prospective non-randomized study designed on patients who underwent implant of Silimed PC. Primary end point was postoperative morbidity and secondary end points were effectiveness of implant and QoL. We performed a sub-analysis of men who received previous radiation and we compared the subpopulation with radiation-naïve patients. Results: nineteen patients (31.6%) received pelvic radiation therapy prior implant. All procedures were completed successfully with median operative time of 55 min. We recorded 47 (78.3%) postoperative complications in 30 men. Twenty-three men (38.3%) developed urethral erosion at median follow-up of 27.5 months, and 1 man (1.9%) had rectourethral fistula at 2 months. Risk of urethral erosion increased significantly among patients who received radiation (63.1 vs. 26.8%; p < 0.001). In 12 cases (20%), we recorded malfunctioning of the reservoir requiring replacement. Conclusion: The implant of Silimed device is not safe due to a high risk of urethral erosion. Careful patient selection and detailed counseling are mandatory when considering the implant of PC in adult patients.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
vedise.pdf

accesso chiuso

Descrizione: articolo principale
Tipologia: Documento in versione editoriale
Dimensione 248.86 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
248.86 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/890645
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact