4.2 Article

Effects of laser procedure for female urodynamic stress incontinence on pad weight, urodynamics, and sexual function

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 469-476

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3129-y

关键词

Laser therapy; Sexual dysfunction; Physiological; Urinary incontinence; Stress; Urodynamics

资金

  1. Dynamic Medical Technologies Inc., Taipei, Taiwan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of the IncontiLase(TM) procedure on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) remains unclear. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of the IncontiLase(TM) procedure for urodynamic stress incontinence (USI). All consecutive women with USI prospectively underwent the IncontiLase(TM) procedure. Urodynamic studies, pad testing, LUTS, and sexual function questionnaires were assessed before and after treatment. Thirty-five women underwent the IncontiLase(TM) procedure. Among the 28 women with baseline pad weights > 1 g, 11 (39.3 %) were objectively cured and 11 (39.3 %) improved. Among the 18 women with mild USI (i.e., baseline pad weight 1-10 g), nine (50 %) were cured and five (27.8 %) improved. Among ten women with baseline pad weight > 10 g, two (20 %) were cured and six (60 %) improved. Among the 32 women with complete questionnaire data at 6 months, seven (21.9 %) were subjectively cured, and four (12.5 %) improved. Regarding LUTS, the majority of domains on the King's Health Questionnaire and female sexual desire and function exhibited significant improvements. Forty percent (12/30) of the partners of these patients felt their sexual function had improved at 6 months. Nonetheless, urodynamic values did not differ across the timeline. The effect of the IncontiLase(TM) procedure for mild USI was moderate at 6-month follow-up but was not effective for pad weight > 10 g. Moreover, it improved LUTS, quality of life, QoL, and sexual function of both partners. Further studies should be performed to assess long-term sustained efficacy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据