Cargando…

Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases

Any new clinical data, whether positive or negative, generated about a medical device should be published because health professionals should know which devices do not work, as well as those which do. We report three spinal cord injury patients in whom urological implants failed to work. In the firs...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vaidyanathan, Subramanian, Soni, Bakul, Singh, Gurpreet, Hughes, Peter, Selmi, Fahed, Mansour, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23864980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/826748
_version_ 1782476486980141056
author Vaidyanathan, Subramanian
Soni, Bakul
Singh, Gurpreet
Hughes, Peter
Selmi, Fahed
Mansour, Paul
author_facet Vaidyanathan, Subramanian
Soni, Bakul
Singh, Gurpreet
Hughes, Peter
Selmi, Fahed
Mansour, Paul
author_sort Vaidyanathan, Subramanian
collection PubMed
description Any new clinical data, whether positive or negative, generated about a medical device should be published because health professionals should know which devices do not work, as well as those which do. We report three spinal cord injury patients in whom urological implants failed to work. In the first, paraplegic, patient, a sacral anterior root stimulator failed to produce erection, and a drug delivery system for intracavernosal administration of vasoactive drugs was therefore implanted; however, this implant never functioned (and, furthermore, such penile drug delivery systems to produce erection had effectively become obsolete following the advent of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors). Subsequently, the sacral anterior root stimulator developed a malfunction and the patient therefore learned to perform self-catheterisation. In the second patient, also paraplegic, an artificial urinary sphincter was implanted but the patient developed a postoperative sacral pressure sore. Eight months later, a suprapubic cystostomy was performed as urethral catheterisation was very difficult. The pressure sore had not healed completely even after five years. In the third case, a sacral anterior root stimulator was implanted in a tetraplegic patient in whom, after five years, a penile sheath could not be fitted because of penile retraction. This patient was therefore established on urethral catheter drainage. Later, infection with Staphylococcus aureus around the receiver block necessitated its removal. In conclusion, spinal cord injury patients are at risk of developing pressure sores, wound infections, malfunction of implants, and the inability to use implants because of age-related changes, as well as running the risk of their implants becoming obsolete due to advances in medicine. Some surgical procedures such as dorsal rhizotomy are irreversible. Alternative treatments such as intermittent catheterisations may be less damaging than bladder stimulator in the long term.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3705782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37057822013-07-17 Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases Vaidyanathan, Subramanian Soni, Bakul Singh, Gurpreet Hughes, Peter Selmi, Fahed Mansour, Paul Case Rep Urol Case Report Any new clinical data, whether positive or negative, generated about a medical device should be published because health professionals should know which devices do not work, as well as those which do. We report three spinal cord injury patients in whom urological implants failed to work. In the first, paraplegic, patient, a sacral anterior root stimulator failed to produce erection, and a drug delivery system for intracavernosal administration of vasoactive drugs was therefore implanted; however, this implant never functioned (and, furthermore, such penile drug delivery systems to produce erection had effectively become obsolete following the advent of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors). Subsequently, the sacral anterior root stimulator developed a malfunction and the patient therefore learned to perform self-catheterisation. In the second patient, also paraplegic, an artificial urinary sphincter was implanted but the patient developed a postoperative sacral pressure sore. Eight months later, a suprapubic cystostomy was performed as urethral catheterisation was very difficult. The pressure sore had not healed completely even after five years. In the third case, a sacral anterior root stimulator was implanted in a tetraplegic patient in whom, after five years, a penile sheath could not be fitted because of penile retraction. This patient was therefore established on urethral catheter drainage. Later, infection with Staphylococcus aureus around the receiver block necessitated its removal. In conclusion, spinal cord injury patients are at risk of developing pressure sores, wound infections, malfunction of implants, and the inability to use implants because of age-related changes, as well as running the risk of their implants becoming obsolete due to advances in medicine. Some surgical procedures such as dorsal rhizotomy are irreversible. Alternative treatments such as intermittent catheterisations may be less damaging than bladder stimulator in the long term. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2013 2013-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC3705782/ /pubmed/23864980 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/826748 Text en Copyright © 2013 Subramanian Vaidyanathan et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Case Report
Vaidyanathan, Subramanian
Soni, Bakul
Singh, Gurpreet
Hughes, Peter
Selmi, Fahed
Mansour, Paul
Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases
title Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases
title_full Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases
title_fullStr Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases
title_full_unstemmed Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases
title_short Failure of Urological Implants in Spinal Cord Injury Patients due to Infection, Malfunction, and Implants Becoming Obsolete due to Medical Progress and Age-Related Changes in Human Body Making Implant Futile: Report of Three Cases
title_sort failure of urological implants in spinal cord injury patients due to infection, malfunction, and implants becoming obsolete due to medical progress and age-related changes in human body making implant futile: report of three cases
topic Case Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705782/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23864980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/826748
work_keys_str_mv AT vaidyanathansubramanian failureofurologicalimplantsinspinalcordinjurypatientsduetoinfectionmalfunctionandimplantsbecomingobsoleteduetomedicalprogressandagerelatedchangesinhumanbodymakingimplantfutilereportofthreecases
AT sonibakul failureofurologicalimplantsinspinalcordinjurypatientsduetoinfectionmalfunctionandimplantsbecomingobsoleteduetomedicalprogressandagerelatedchangesinhumanbodymakingimplantfutilereportofthreecases
AT singhgurpreet failureofurologicalimplantsinspinalcordinjurypatientsduetoinfectionmalfunctionandimplantsbecomingobsoleteduetomedicalprogressandagerelatedchangesinhumanbodymakingimplantfutilereportofthreecases
AT hughespeter failureofurologicalimplantsinspinalcordinjurypatientsduetoinfectionmalfunctionandimplantsbecomingobsoleteduetomedicalprogressandagerelatedchangesinhumanbodymakingimplantfutilereportofthreecases
AT selmifahed failureofurologicalimplantsinspinalcordinjurypatientsduetoinfectionmalfunctionandimplantsbecomingobsoleteduetomedicalprogressandagerelatedchangesinhumanbodymakingimplantfutilereportofthreecases
AT mansourpaul failureofurologicalimplantsinspinalcordinjurypatientsduetoinfectionmalfunctionandimplantsbecomingobsoleteduetomedicalprogressandagerelatedchangesinhumanbodymakingimplantfutilereportofthreecases