Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ziegelmann, Matthew J., Hebert, Kevin J., Linder, Brian J., Rangel, Laureano J., Elliott, Daniel S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Turkish Association of Urology 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10081129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37877837
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22136
_version_ 1785021053328687104
author Ziegelmann, Matthew J.
Hebert, Kevin J.
Linder, Brian J.
Rangel, Laureano J.
Elliott, Daniel S.
author_facet Ziegelmann, Matthew J.
Hebert, Kevin J.
Linder, Brian J.
Rangel, Laureano J.
Elliott, Daniel S.
author_sort Ziegelmann, Matthew J.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10081129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Turkish Association of Urology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100811292023-04-08 The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes Ziegelmann, Matthew J. Hebert, Kevin J. Linder, Brian J. Rangel, Laureano J. Elliott, Daniel S. Turk J Urol Original Article 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. Turkish Association of Urology 2023-01-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10081129/ /pubmed/37877837 http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22136 Text en 2023 authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Article
Ziegelmann, Matthew J.
Hebert, Kevin J.
Linder, Brian J.
Rangel, Laureano J.
Elliott, Daniel S.
The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes
title The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes
title_full The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes
title_fullStr The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes
title_full_unstemmed The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes
title_short The “Minimal-Touch” Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes
title_sort “minimal-touch” technique for artificial urinary sphincter placement: description and outcomes
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10081129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37877837
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/tud.2023.22136
work_keys_str_mv AT ziegelmannmatthewj theminimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT hebertkevinj theminimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT linderbrianj theminimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT rangellaureanoj theminimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT elliottdaniels theminimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT ziegelmannmatthewj minimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT hebertkevinj minimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT linderbrianj minimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT rangellaureanoj minimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes
AT elliottdaniels minimaltouchtechniqueforartificialurinarysphincterplacementdescriptionandoutcomes