Indian Journal of Urology Users online:401  
IJU
Home Current Issue Ahead of print Editorial Board Archives Symposia Guidelines Subscriptions Login 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
SPECIAL ARTICLE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 26  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 279-283

Slings in iatrogenic male incontinence: Current status


Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, San Paolo Hospital, Savona, Italy

Correspondence Address:
Fabrizio Gallo
Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, San Paolo Hospital, Via Genova, 38 -17100 Savona
Italy
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-1591.65423

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The increasing number of prostatectomies entails an increasing number of patients suffering from iatrogenic incontinence despite improved surgical techniques. The severity of this problem often requires invasive treatments such as periurethral injection of bulking agents, artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation, and sub-urethral sling positioning. The artificial urethral sphincter has represented, until today, the gold standard but, in the recent years, sling systems have been investigated as minimally invasive alternative options. Today, three different sling procedures are commonly performed: bone-anchored, readjustable, and trans-obturator slings systems. The aim of this review is to critically report the current status of sling systems in the treatment of iatrogenic male incontinence. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE and PubMed databases were searched and all articles between 1974 and 2009 were evaluated. Results: With regard to bone-anchored, readjustable, and trans-obturator slings systems, cure rates ranged between 58.0% and 86.0%, 55.5% and 73.0%, and 40.0% and 63.0%, respectively, while major complication rates ranged between 0 and 14.5%, 10.0 and 22.2%, and 0 and 10.0%, respectively. Conclusions: Suburethral slings are the only alternative techniques which can be favorably compared with the AUS, showing more advantages with respect to AUS implantations which are mainly represented by a quick and less invasive approach, low morbidity, and low costs. In spite of the difficulty in identifying the most effective sling procedure, overall, sling systems can be recommended for patients with persistent mild or moderate incontinence. However, the indication can also be extended to patients with severe incontinence, after appropriate counseling, allowing AUS implantation in the event of sling failure.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3441    
    Printed99    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded178    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 7    

Recommend this journal

 

HEALTHWARE INDIA