Exploration of the relationship between the urethral pressure profilometry and the complications of artificial urethral sphincter implantation
10.3760/cma.j.cn112330-20220614-00356
- VernacularTitle:尿道压力描记检查结果与人工尿道括约肌植入术并发症的关系
- Author:
Lingfeng MENG
1
;
Miao WANG
;
Xiaodong LIU
;
Wei ZHANG
;
Huimin HOU
;
Shuangyi ZHAO
;
Yunhe ZHOU
;
Xin CHU
;
Jianye WU
;
Yaoguang ZHANG
Author Information
1. 北京医院泌尿外科 国家老家医学中心 中国医学科学院老年医学研究院，北京 100730
- Keywords:
Urinary incontinence;
Artificial urinary sphincter;
Urodynamics;
Urethral pressure profilometry
- From:
Chinese Journal of Urology
2022;43(11):840-844
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the potential relationship of urethral pressure profilometry and the complications of artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation.Methods:The clinical data of patients who underwent AUS implantation in Beijing Hospital from March 2019 to March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. All the patients were male. The average course of disease was 43.1 months(ranging 11-120 months). The average age was (68.6±13.2) years. The median number of pads used was 4.5 (3.0, 6.0). The preoperative maximum urethral pressure (MUP) was (84.6±25.5) cmH 2O, and the maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) was 51.0 (41.0, 74.0) cmH 2O. AUS implantation was performed through a single perineal incision in all patients. The sleeve size was mainly determined by the measured urethral circumference of the patient. After installation of all components, the urethral pressure profilometry was performed under the state of device inactivation and activation. The pump was activated 6 weeks after the operation, and telephone follow-up was performed 3 months after the activation of the device. The urinary control and complications were recorded. The results of follow-up were compared with the results of urethral pressure profilometry, and the preliminary conclusions were drawn. Results:In this study, 3 patients (20%) received 4.0cm cuffs, 10 patients (66.7%) received 4.5cm cuffs, and 2 patients (13.3%) received 5.0cm cuffs. The MUP and MUCP of AUS device in inactivated state were (82.5±30.2) cmH 2O and 51.0(48.0, 77.0) cmH 2O. In the activated state, MUP was (138.9±21.7) cmH 2O and MUCP was 109.0(94.0, 133.0) cmH 2O. Compared with that before operation, the urethral pressure in the inactivated state did not increase significantly (all P > 0.05), while the urethral pressure in the activated state increased significantly (all P < 0.001). The patients were followed-up for 3-33 months. Thirteen patients (86.7%) used the initial installation device, and all of them met the standard of social continence. One patient died of cerebrovascular accident. One patient took out the device due to urethral erosion. The incidence of complications was 26.7% (4/15), including painless hematuria in 2 cases, scrotum and penis infection in 1 case, and urethral erosion in 1 case. The MUP and MUCP of these patients were (100.0 ± 40.7) cmH 2O and (80.8 ± 39.7) cmH 2O respectively. In the intraoperative active state, the MUP was (151.5 ± 15.3) cmH 2O and the MUCP was (123.0 ± 17.2) cmH 2O. The MUP of the other 3 patients in the device activation state was significantly higher than the average value, and all of them were above 150 cm H 2O, except one patient who was infected due to cognitive problems and chronic urinary retention. In 11 patients without complications, the MUP and MUCP were (76.1±24.7) cmH 2O and (55.1±20.0) cmH 2O respectively. In the intraoperative active state, the MUP was (134.4±22.5) cmH 2O and the MUCP was (108.5±29.8) cmH 2O. Conclusions:AUS implantation has a definite curative effect. Poor comprehension, and MUP higher than 150 cmH 2O in the activated state of the device may be risk factors for complications.
