XXXX ( @entity3930 ) System for Postprostatectomy Incontinence: Experiences of 2 Centers.

@entity1 @entity3930 @entity322
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of @entity3930 ( @entity3930 ) in @entity1 with @entity322 at 2 unrelated centers and to determine preoperative factors relevant to the outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2007 to January 2014, a total of 64 @entity1 with @entity322 following radical prostatectomy were treated with @entity3930 at 2 centers. @entity1 were evaluated based on medical history, daily pad usage, urodynamics, and cystoscopy. The clinical outcome was evaluated according to daily pad usage and questionnaires. Success was defined according to reductions in the number of pads used per day after surgery, and factors related to surgical outcome were investigated. RESULTS: The median age of the @entity1 was 70 years (range: 53-84), and the mean follow-up duration was 46.0        19.47 months (range: 12-89). During follow-up, readjustment of the sling was required 1.9 times on average. Daily pad usage decreased significantly from 3.42        2.00 to 0.84        1.20 (P   <.001), and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form score improved (18.65        2.61 to 10.55        6.21, P   <.001) without deterioration of voiding symptoms at the last follow-up. @entity3930 was successful in 46 of 64 @entity1 (71.9%). Of the 18 @entity1 who experienced surgical failure, 12 @entity1 required secondary artificial urethral sphincter implantation. The number of daily used pads (odds ratio 1.414) and a history of pelvic irradiation (odds ratio 8.400) were potential risk factors for surgical failure. CONCLUSION: According to our midterm follow-up data, @entity3930 is an effective and a safe treatment option for radiation-na  ve @entity1 with a mild degree of @entity322 .
