Search

Copyright of Colo-Proctology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Die Urologie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: To analyze and compare preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative results in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) selected for an adjustable male sling system or an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort. Methods: 658 male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in this study (n = 176 adjustable male sling; n = 482 AUS). Preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. For statistical analysis, the independent T test and Mann–Whitney U test were used. Results: Patients undergoing adjustable male sling implantation were less likely to have a neurological disease (4.5% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), a history of urethral stricture (21.6% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.024) or a radiation therapy (22.7% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.020) compared to patients that underwent AUS implantation. Mean pad usage per day (6.87 vs. 5.82; p < 0.00) and the ratio of patients with a prior incontinence surgery were higher in patients selected for an AUS implantation (36.7% vs. 22.7%; p < 0.001). At maximum follow-up, patients that underwent an AUS implantation had a significantly lower mean pad usage during daytime (p < 0.001) and nighttime (p = 0.018). Furthermore, the patients' perception of their continence status was better with a subjective complete dry rate of 57.3% vs. 22.0% (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Patients selected for an AUS implantation showed a more complex prior history and pathogenesis of urinary incontinence as well as a more severe grade of SUI. Postoperative results reflect a better continence status after AUS implantation, favoring the AUS despite the more complicated patient cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Der Gynäkologe is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: With increasing life expectancy, progressive demographic change and decreasing societal stigmatization of incontinence urologists and gynaecologists are increasingly faced with urogynaecological challenges. To date however, urogynaecology is a poorly standardized area of expertise in both disciplines. Therefore, the urogynaecology training, especially in Germany, is very heterogeneous and requires evaluation as well as improvement.Materials and Methods: The GeSRU-Academics research group "Functional urology and LUTS" evaluated this subject nationwide among urological and gynecological trainees and their chief physicians by using a comprehensive questionnaire (34/38 multiple-choice items) between April 2015 and May 2016.Results: 336 urological residents and 190 chief physicians as well as 171 gynaecological residents and 175 chief physicians participated in the survey. Of all trainees, 70.0 % stated a personal interest in urogynaecology, but 45.4 % (gynaecological residents) and 52.9 % (urological residents) mention not to receive a standardized training in their own department. The chief physicians' survey resulted in discrepancies concerning the same question, <10 % of all residents do not receive a standardized urogynaecological training from their point of view. However, standardized urogynaecological training is of importance for those chief physicians.Conclusions: There is a discrepancy between expectations and reality of urogynaecological education and training. To enable a well-structured and standardized urogynaecological education and training, it is compulsory to focus on an interdisciplinary cooperation and to promote multidisciplinary development. A broad-based, well-designed training network and curricula should be established and used consistently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]