File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1007/s11884-019-00526-7
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85069665955
- WOS: WOS:000482476800004
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The argument for and against the use of multichannel urodynamics in the assessment of post-prostatectomy incontinence
Title | The argument for and against the use of multichannel urodynamics in the assessment of post-prostatectomy incontinence |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Radical prostatectomy Post-prostatectomy incontinence Urodynamics Voiding dysfunction post-prostatectomy |
Issue Date | 2019 |
Publisher | Springer Healthcare. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/medicine/urology/journal/11884 |
Citation | Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports, 2019, v. 14 n. 3, p. 144-150 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Purpose of Review:
Prostate cancer is a common male malignancy. Radical prostatectomy is a common treatment option in patients with localised disease. Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is not uncommon, with a significant impact on the quality of life. However, it is often under-reported and undertreated. There are no standard international guidelines specifically for investigation and diagnosis of PPI. The routine use of urodynamic studies (UDS), with an attempt to assess urinary incontinence aetiology and to predict success prior to invasive surgical treatment, has been widely adopted but remains controversial.
Recent Findings:
Literature concerning the pros and cons of pre-operative UDS is reviewed. There are conflicting results on UDS findings post-prostatectomy. Few studies demonstrated that UDS findings are not predictive of outcomes of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). Other studies have shown the presence of detrusor overactivity (DO) to be an adverse prognostic factor, especially for PPI patients treated with male sling success. Currently, there is no consensus on the indication for UDS in patients with PPI.
Summary:
Despite conflicting results on the usefulness of UDS prior to PPI surgery, the majority of surgeons still routinely perform UDS pre-operatively. Further prospective and randomised controlled studies would be beneficial in determining if routine UDS is required before surgical treatment for PPI. The authors also gave their perspective on the application of personalised UDS in investigating patients PPI prior to treatment. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/277243 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.2 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.168 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Ng, ATL | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lam, W | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-09-20T08:47:19Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-09-20T08:47:19Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports, 2019, v. 14 n. 3, p. 144-150 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1931-7212 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/277243 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose of Review: Prostate cancer is a common male malignancy. Radical prostatectomy is a common treatment option in patients with localised disease. Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is not uncommon, with a significant impact on the quality of life. However, it is often under-reported and undertreated. There are no standard international guidelines specifically for investigation and diagnosis of PPI. The routine use of urodynamic studies (UDS), with an attempt to assess urinary incontinence aetiology and to predict success prior to invasive surgical treatment, has been widely adopted but remains controversial. Recent Findings: Literature concerning the pros and cons of pre-operative UDS is reviewed. There are conflicting results on UDS findings post-prostatectomy. Few studies demonstrated that UDS findings are not predictive of outcomes of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). Other studies have shown the presence of detrusor overactivity (DO) to be an adverse prognostic factor, especially for PPI patients treated with male sling success. Currently, there is no consensus on the indication for UDS in patients with PPI. Summary: Despite conflicting results on the usefulness of UDS prior to PPI surgery, the majority of surgeons still routinely perform UDS pre-operatively. Further prospective and randomised controlled studies would be beneficial in determining if routine UDS is required before surgical treatment for PPI. The authors also gave their perspective on the application of personalised UDS in investigating patients PPI prior to treatment. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Springer Healthcare. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.springer.com/medicine/urology/journal/11884 | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports | - |
dc.rights | This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in [insert journal title]. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/[insert DOI] | - |
dc.subject | Radical prostatectomy | - |
dc.subject | Post-prostatectomy incontinence | - |
dc.subject | Urodynamics | - |
dc.subject | Voiding dysfunction post-prostatectomy | - |
dc.title | The argument for and against the use of multichannel urodynamics in the assessment of post-prostatectomy incontinence | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Ng, ATL: ada5022@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Lam, W: lamwayne@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Lam, W=rp02305 | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1007/s11884-019-00526-7 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85069665955 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 305357 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 14 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 144 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 150 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000482476800004 | - |
dc.publisher.place | United States | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1931-7212 | - |