Evidence Hub

Periurethral constrictor: late results of the treatment of post prostatectomy urinary incontinence

Lima RS, Barros EG, Souza CA, de O Vilar F, Lima SV

International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology, 2011

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated retrospectively, the long-term outcome of patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) after placement of the Periurethral Constrictor (PUC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six men with severe PPUI were studied, with a mean age of 68.5 years old. Fifty-one men had PPUI due to radical surgery having the device placed around the bulbous urethra, and five individuals with benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) had placement around the bladder neck. The mean follow-up was 82.2 months.

RESULTS: Twenty-two patients (39.28%) became continent (0 to 1 pad a day) and 34 (60.72%) were incontinent. Complications were as follows: urethral erosion in 15 (26.78%); mechanical malfunction in 2 (3.5%); infection in 2 (3.5%); urinary fistula in 1 (1.7%); Urinary tract infection1 (1.7%). Twenty-three patients needed to have the device removed (41.07%). Success rate (continent me) was 30.35%.

CONCLUSION: In the present series the PUC was not effective for the treatment of severe PPUI in the long-term follow-up.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free