ABSTRACT
Existing therapies for neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO), i.e. oral anticholinergics and botulinum toxin injections, can be associated with serious adverse effects or are not always sufficiently effective. Therefore, there is a need for alternative safe and effective treatment options for NDO. Intravesical oxybutynin has been successfully used for several years as a prescription drug in adults and children with spinal cord injury and spina bifida. In 2019, VESOXX® (FARCO-PHARMA, Cologne, Germany) became the first registered intravesical oxybutynin product in Germany, which is indicated for the suppression of neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) in children from 6 years of age and adults, who are managing bladder emptying by clean intermittent catheterisation (CIC), if they cannot be adequately managed by oral anticholinergic treatment due to lack of efficacy and/or intolerable side effects. Overall, there are limited data regarding therapy with intravesical oxybutynin, with the majority of publications being retrospective case series. To date, there are limited data on the efficacy and safety of the newly approved intravesical oxybutynin therapy (VESOXX®) in NDO patients. This noninterventional case series from daily routine treatment which evaluated the physician reports of 38 patients suggests that intravesical oxybutynin effectively improves maximum detrusor pressure (Pdet max) by decreasing it by 59% from 51.94â¯cm H2O⯱ 26.12 standard deviation (SD) to 21.07â¯cm H2O⯱ 17.32 SD (Pâ¯< 0.001, nâ¯= 34). Maximum bladder pressure (MBC) increased by 34% from 260.45â¯ml⯱ 200.26 SD to 348.45â¯ml⯱ 175.90 SD. Positive or similar effects compared to previous therapies were seen in bladder morphology, number of incontinence episodes, urinary tract infections and adverse drug effects. This case series demonstrates that intravesical oxybutynin is an important addition to current therapies for the treatment of NDO and it is also efficacious in the rare setting of other underlying diseases beyond spinal cord injury or spina bifida. The approved intravesical oxybutynin preparation VESOXX® may be a useful alternative for patients who do not respond to other therapies or suffered side effects.
Subject(s)
Mandelic Acids , Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic , Urinary Bladder, Overactive , Humans , Administration, Intravesical , Germany , Mandelic Acids/therapeutic use , Mandelic Acids/administration & dosage , Mandelic Acids/adverse effects , Muscarinic Antagonists/administration & dosage , Muscarinic Antagonists/therapeutic use , Muscarinic Antagonists/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome , Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic/drug therapy , Urinary Bladder, Overactive/drug therapy , Urological Agents/therapeutic use , Urological Agents/administration & dosage , Urological Agents/adverse effectsABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To analyze and compare preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative results in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) selected for an adjustable male sling system or an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort. METHODS: 658 male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in this study (n = 176 adjustable male sling; n = 482 AUS). Preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. For statistical analysis, the independent T test and Mann-Whitney U test were used. RESULTS: Patients undergoing adjustable male sling implantation were less likely to have a neurological disease (4.5% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), a history of urethral stricture (21.6% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.024) or a radiation therapy (22.7% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.020) compared to patients that underwent AUS implantation. Mean pad usage per day (6.87 vs. 5.82; p < 0.00) and the ratio of patients with a prior incontinence surgery were higher in patients selected for an AUS implantation (36.7% vs. 22.7%; p < 0.001). At maximum follow-up, patients that underwent an AUS implantation had a significantly lower mean pad usage during daytime (p < 0.001) and nighttime (p = 0.018). Furthermore, the patients' perception of their continence status was better with a subjective complete dry rate of 57.3% vs. 22.0% (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients selected for an AUS implantation showed a more complex prior history and pathogenesis of urinary incontinence as well as a more severe grade of SUI. Postoperative results reflect a better continence status after AUS implantation, favoring the AUS despite the more complicated patient cohort.
Subject(s)
Suburethral Slings , Urinary Incontinence, Stress/surgery , Urinary Sphincter, Artificial , Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male/methods , Aged , Cohort Studies , Humans , Male , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Patient Selection , Radiotherapy/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Outcome , Urethral Stricture/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: With increasing life expectancy, progressive demographic change and decreasing societal stigmatization of incontinence urologists and gynaecologists are increasingly faced with urogynaecological challenges. To date however, urogynaecology is a poorly standardized area of expertise in both disciplines. Therefore, the urogynaecology training, especially in Germany, is very heterogeneous and requires evaluation as well as improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The GeSRU-Academics research group "Functional urology and LUTS" evaluated this subject nationwide among urological and gynecological trainees and their chief physicians by using a comprehensive questionnaire (34/38 multiple-choice items) between April 2015 and May 2016. RESULTS: 336 urological residents and 190 chief physicians as well as 171 gynaecological residents and 175 chief physicians participated in the survey. Of all trainees, 70.0 % stated a personal interest in urogynaecology, but 45.4 % (gynaecological residents) and 52.9 % (urological residents) mention not to receive a standardized training in their own department. The chief physicians' survey resulted in discrepancies concerning the same question, <10 % of all residents do not receive a standardized urogynaecological training from their point of view. However, standardized urogynaecological training is of importance for those chief physicians. CONCLUSIONS: There is a discrepancy between expectations and reality of urogynaecological education and training. To enable a well-structured and standardized urogynaecological education and training, it is compulsory to focus on an interdisciplinary cooperation and to promote multidisciplinary development. A broad-based, well-designed training network and curricula should be established and used consistently.
