Document Detail

Anatomical and Manometric Comparison of Perineal and Transscrotal Approaches to Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  22999695     Owner:  NLM     Status:  Publisher    
PURPOSE: We compared cuff sites and assessed anatomical and manometric differences between the transscrotal and perineal approaches to artificial urinary sphincter placement in fresh male cadavers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Artificial urinary sphincter implantation using perineal and transscrotal incisions was performed in 15 fresh male cadavers. The artificial urinary sphincter cuffs were placed as proximal as possible using each approach. After measuring urethral circumference at each cuff site, an appropriately sized cuff was placed at each location. The 61 to 70 cm H(2)O pressure reservoir and control pump were then connected to the cuffs. Retrograde leak point pressure was assessed sequentially across each cuff. The paired t test was used to compare urethral circumference and retrograde leak point pressure between the 2 approaches. RESULTS: Mean urethral circumference using the perineal and transscrotal approaches was 5.38 (range 3.2 to 7.5) and 3.81 cm (range 3 to 4.5), respectively (p <0.0001, 95% CI of difference 0.99-2.13). Mean retrograde leak point pressure using the perineal and transscrotal approaches was 90.1 and 64.9 cm H(2)O, respectively (p = 0.0002, 95% CI of difference 13.7-33.5). On visual inspection of cuff sites, the perineal approach was more proximal on the urethra than the transscrotal approach. CONCLUSIONS: While the transscrotal approach to artificial urinary sphincter placement has the advantage of technical ease, the anatomical and manometric findings of this cadaver study suggest that the perineal approach offers a more proximal cuff location, more robust urethral size and more effective urethral coaptation than the transscrotal approach.
Ifeanyi Anusionwu; Jennifer Miles-Thomas; David J Hernandez; E James Wright
Related Documents :
17197465 - Performance of the paxpress vs the proseal laryngeal mask airway during general anesthe...
17650355 - Physiological responses to positive expiratory pressure breathing: a comparison of the ...
8301335 - Comparison of six methods to calculate airway resistance during mechanical ventilation ...
9311505 - Autoset nasal cpap titration: constancy of pressure, compliance and effectiveness at 8 ...
4051005 - Tubuloglomerular feedback during elevated renal venous pressure.
23539555 - State of the evidence: mechanical ventilation with peep in patients with cardiogenic sh...
Publication Detail:
Type:  JOURNAL ARTICLE     Date:  2012-9-19
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Journal of urology     Volume:  -     ISSN:  1527-3792     ISO Abbreviation:  J. Urol.     Publication Date:  2012 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2012-9-24     Completed Date:  -     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  0376374     Medline TA:  J Urol     Country:  -    
Other Details:
Languages:  ENG     Pagination:  -     Citation Subset:  -    
Copyright Information:
Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. Electronic address:
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  How dry is "OAB-dry"? Perspectives from patients and physician experts.
Next Document:  R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry Score Accurately Predicts Complications Following Laparoscopic Renal Cryoabla...