TY - JOUR
T1 - The AdVance and AdVanceXP male sling in urinary incontinence
T2 - is there a difference?
AU - Hüsch, Tanja
AU - Kretschmer, Alexander
AU - Thomsen, Frauke
AU - Kronlachner, Dominik
AU - Kurosch, Martin
AU - Obaje, Alice
AU - Anding, Ralf
AU - Kirschner-Hermanns, Ruth
AU - Pottek, Tobias
AU - Rose, Achim
AU - Olianas, Roberto
AU - Lusuardi, Lukas
AU - Friedl, Alexander
AU - Homberg, Roland
AU - Pfitzenmaier, Jesco
AU - Queissert, Fabian
AU - Naumann, Carsten M.
AU - Schweiger, Josef
AU - Wotzka, Carola
AU - Nyarangi-Dix, Joanne
AU - Brehmer, Bernhard
AU - Abdunnur, Rudi
AU - Loertzer, Hagen
AU - Ulm, Kurt
AU - Hübner, Wilhelm
AU - Bauer, Ricarda M.
AU - Haferkamp, Axel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018, Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2018/10/1
Y1 - 2018/10/1
N2 - Purpose: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi2-test for categorical and Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups. Results: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage. Conclusions: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.
AB - Purpose: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi2-test for categorical and Mann–Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups. Results: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage. Conclusions: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.
KW - AdVance
KW - AdVanceXP
KW - Male
KW - Male sling
KW - Stress urinary incontinence
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046442795&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00345-018-2316-5
DO - 10.1007/s00345-018-2316-5
M3 - Article
C2 - 29728764
AN - SCOPUS:85046442795
SN - 0724-4983
VL - 36
SP - 1657
EP - 1662
JO - World Journal of Urology
JF - World Journal of Urology
IS - 10
ER -