Premium
88
The adjustable continence therapy (PROACT™) for the treatment of post‐prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a comparison of two techniques
Author(s) -
GILLING P.J.,
KENNETT K.M.,
WESTENBERG A.M.,
FRAUNDORFER M.R.,
WILSON L.M.,
BELL D.F.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
bju international
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.773
H-Index - 148
eISSN - 1464-410X
pISSN - 1464-4096
DOI - 10.1111/j.1464-410x.2006.06085_88.x
Subject(s) - medicine , prostatectomy , urinary incontinence , quality of life (healthcare) , adverse effect , neck of urinary bladder , surgery , stress incontinence , urology , prostate , urinary bladder , cancer , nursing
The Adjustable Continence Therapy (ProACT™) consists of two postoperatively adjustable balloons placed either at the level of bladder neck in postradical prostatectomy patients or, more recently, at the level of the apex in patients with residual prostate tissue. We compared the efficacy of ProACT in post radical and benign surgery patients. Materials and Methods: Thirty postradical prostatectomy (RP) and seven postbenign surgery have been evaluated beyond 6 months follow up. Three of the RP and one in the benign group had also undergone radiation therapy. Baseline assessment of pad usage; Quality of Life questionaries and assessment of adverse events were repeated at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Results: Mean follow‐up was 18.9 months in the RP group and 27.8 months in the benign group. Pad usage in the RP and postbenign group decreased from 2.6 and 3.8 at baseline to 0.7 and 1.2 at 6 months; 0.5 and 1 at 12 months; 0.6 and 1 at 24 months and 0.4 and 0.7 at 36 months respectively. Quality of Life increased in the RP and benign group from 49.6 and 49.7 at baseline to 71.7 and 77.9 at 6 months; 74.9 and 78.6 at 12 months; 70.6 and 76.1 at 24 months and 88 and 86.5 at 36 months respectively. Adverse events including balloon migration (two) and infection (three) were managed by outpatient removal and further re‐implantation. Conclusions: The results appear similar in both groups, though different techniques are required.