Up-to-Date Procedures in Female Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery: A Concise Review on Bulking Agents Procedures

Medicina

Matteo Frigerio¹  Maria Carmela Di Dedda²  Andrea De Rosa³  Maurizio Serati³  Chiara Scancarello³  Chiara Cimmino³  Andrea Braga⁴  Marco Torella⁵  Alessandro Ferdinando Ruffolo⁶  Massimo Candiani⁶  Stefano Salvatore⁶ 

[1] ASST Monza, Ospedale San Gerardo, 20900 Monza, Italy;Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ASST FBF-SACCO Macedonio Melloni Hospital, 20129 Milano, Italy;Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Del Ponte Hospital, University of Insubria, 21100 Varese, Italy;Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, EOC—Beata Vergine Hospital, 6850 Mendrisio, Switzerland;Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Second Faculty, 80129 Naples, Italy;Obstetrics and Gynecology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Vita-Salute University, 20132 Milano, Italy;

关键词: stress urinary incontinence;    urinary incontinence;    SUI;    bulking agents;    urethral bulking;    UBA;   

DOI  :  10.3390/medicina58060775

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

To avoid complications related to mid-urethral slings (MUS), alternative procedures to treat stress urinary incontinence (SUI), such as urethral bulking agents (UBAs) have been adopted. The aim of this review is to narratively report the efficacy and safety of UBAs for SUI treatment. For this review, research from PubMed and EMBASE was performed to evaluate relevant studies that were undertaken from January 2012 to January 2022. Nineteen prospective studies were included. Several definitions of subjective and objective success were adopted. At a follow-up of <24 months, significant improvement was widely observed, even if with a heterogeneous rate of success between 32.7–90%, and a reinjection rate of 8.3–77.3%. Compared with other procedures, MUS resulted as significantly superior to UBAs but was balanced by a higher complication rate. Acute urinary retention, urinary tract infection and de novo urgency, and other complications, such as injection site rupture, urethral erosion and particle migration have been described after UBAs. SUI after UBAs treatment resulted in improvements in all studies and can be considered a safe and effective option to treat SUI. However, homogenous and longer-term data lack, limiting general recommendations. Thus, larger RCTs evaluating long-term effects are required.

【 授权许可】

Unknown