Cargando…
Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study
AIMS: Primary outcome was to evaluate patients' satisfaction after being treated with bulk injection therapy polydimethylsiloxane Urolastic (PDMS‐U) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Secondary outcomes were: subjective cure, objective cure, severity of SUI symptoms, complications, reinterv...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497040/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32526063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.24417 |
_version_ | 1783583230846304256 |
---|---|
author | Casteleijn, Fenne M. Kowalik, Claudia R. Berends, Claudia Blaganje, Mija Lasić Pecev, Mateja van der Linden, Ellen Zwolsman, Sandra E. Roovers, Jan‐Paul W. R. Minnee, Pieter |
author_facet | Casteleijn, Fenne M. Kowalik, Claudia R. Berends, Claudia Blaganje, Mija Lasić Pecev, Mateja van der Linden, Ellen Zwolsman, Sandra E. Roovers, Jan‐Paul W. R. Minnee, Pieter |
author_sort | Casteleijn, Fenne M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: Primary outcome was to evaluate patients' satisfaction after being treated with bulk injection therapy polydimethylsiloxane Urolastic (PDMS‐U) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Secondary outcomes were: subjective cure, objective cure, severity of SUI symptoms, complications, reintervention rate, and disease‐specific quality of life. Furthermore, to determine if outcomes worsened during time‐after‐treatment (time‐frames: 0‐12, 13‐24, and ≥25 months). METHODS: In a cross‐sectional design, patients treated with PDMS‐U were recruited for hospital revisit. The primary outcome, patients' satisfaction, was assessed by the surgical satisfaction questionnaire. Subjective cure, objective cure, and severity of symptoms were assessed by the patients global impression of improvement, standardized cough stress test, and Sandvik severity scale, respectively. Medical charts and face‐to‐face interviews were used to determine complications and reinterventions. RESULTS: About 110 patients participated, 87 revisited the hospital. Median follow‐up was 25 months (interquartile range: 14;35 months). Patients' satisfaction rate was 51%. Subjective and objective cure were respectively 46% and 47%. Most prevalent complications were: urinary retention (22%), pain (15%), and dyspareunia (15%). Exposure and erosion occurred in 7% and 5%, respectively. Reintervention rate of reinjection and excision of bulk material was 6% and 18.0%, respectively. Objective cure significantly worsened during time‐after‐treatment (P = < .05). CONCLUSIONS: About half of the patients being treated with PDMS‐U were satisfied and subjectively cured 2 years after treatment, although the majority still experienced symptoms of SUI. Most complications were mild and transient, however, in 18% excision of bulk material was indicated for severe or persistent complications such as pain, exposure, or erosion. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7497040 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-74970402020-09-25 Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study Casteleijn, Fenne M. Kowalik, Claudia R. Berends, Claudia Blaganje, Mija Lasić Pecev, Mateja van der Linden, Ellen Zwolsman, Sandra E. Roovers, Jan‐Paul W. R. Minnee, Pieter Neurourol Urodyn Original Clinical Articles AIMS: Primary outcome was to evaluate patients' satisfaction after being treated with bulk injection therapy polydimethylsiloxane Urolastic (PDMS‐U) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Secondary outcomes were: subjective cure, objective cure, severity of SUI symptoms, complications, reintervention rate, and disease‐specific quality of life. Furthermore, to determine if outcomes worsened during time‐after‐treatment (time‐frames: 0‐12, 13‐24, and ≥25 months). METHODS: In a cross‐sectional design, patients treated with PDMS‐U were recruited for hospital revisit. The primary outcome, patients' satisfaction, was assessed by the surgical satisfaction questionnaire. Subjective cure, objective cure, and severity of symptoms were assessed by the patients global impression of improvement, standardized cough stress test, and Sandvik severity scale, respectively. Medical charts and face‐to‐face interviews were used to determine complications and reinterventions. RESULTS: About 110 patients participated, 87 revisited the hospital. Median follow‐up was 25 months (interquartile range: 14;35 months). Patients' satisfaction rate was 51%. Subjective and objective cure were respectively 46% and 47%. Most prevalent complications were: urinary retention (22%), pain (15%), and dyspareunia (15%). Exposure and erosion occurred in 7% and 5%, respectively. Reintervention rate of reinjection and excision of bulk material was 6% and 18.0%, respectively. Objective cure significantly worsened during time‐after‐treatment (P = < .05). CONCLUSIONS: About half of the patients being treated with PDMS‐U were satisfied and subjectively cured 2 years after treatment, although the majority still experienced symptoms of SUI. Most complications were mild and transient, however, in 18% excision of bulk material was indicated for severe or persistent complications such as pain, exposure, or erosion. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-06-11 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7497040/ /pubmed/32526063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.24417 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Neurourology and Urodynamics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Clinical Articles Casteleijn, Fenne M. Kowalik, Claudia R. Berends, Claudia Blaganje, Mija Lasić Pecev, Mateja van der Linden, Ellen Zwolsman, Sandra E. Roovers, Jan‐Paul W. R. Minnee, Pieter Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study |
title | Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study |
title_full | Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study |
title_fullStr | Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study |
title_full_unstemmed | Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study |
title_short | Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross‐sectional study |
title_sort | patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a cross‐sectional study |
topic | Original Clinical Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497040/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32526063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nau.24417 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT casteleijnfennem patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT kowalikclaudiar patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT berendsclaudia patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT blaganjemija patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT lasicpecevmateja patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT vanderlindenellen patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT zwolsmansandrae patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT rooversjanpaulwr patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy AT minneepieter patientssatisfactionandsafetyofbulkinjectiontherapyurolasticfortreatmentofstressurinaryincontinenceacrosssectionalstudy |