infrequent reservoir‐related complications of urologic prosthetics: a case series and literature review
Clicks: 301
ID: 133240
2015
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
301 views
19 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #8 of 27 articles by views in australian journal of chemistry
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Introduction and Aim: Complications related to inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) reservoirs are rare, potentially life threatening, and poorly described in the literature. As more devices are implanted, the incidence of reservoir‐related complications may increase, and it will be important to recognize the relevant signs and symptoms.
Methods and Main Outcome Measures: We present a case series of reservoir‐related complications presenting to our institution for treatment. We also reviewed all accounts of reservoir‐related complications within the urologic literature
Results: Three cases of reservoir‐related complications are presented. Case 1 involves erosion of an intact AUS reservoir into the cecum of a patient with a history of myelomeningocele and bladder augmentation. Case 2 involves an IPP reservoir causing vascular compression, resulting in open exploration and repositioning of the reservoir. Case 3 involves intraperitoneal migration of a retained IPP reservoir to a subhepatic area, which was then removed laparoscopically. Literature review yielded descriptions of eight cases of intestinal complications, five cases of vascular complications, but zero reports of migration to a subhepatic area. Other notable complications include 20 reported cases of reservoir erosion into the bladder and inguinal herniation of the reservoir.
Conclusion: Complications involving urologic prosthesis reservoirs, although rare, can have serious implications for patients. A high index of suspicion and familiarity with treatment options is required in order to allow timely diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Patients with prior major abdominal surgeries seem to be more prone to intestinal complications of reservoirs and warrant special concern. Cui T, Terlecki R, and Mirzazadeh M. Infrequent reservoir‐related complications of urologic prosthetics: A case series and literature review. Sex Med 2015;3:334–338.
| Reference Key |
md2015sexualinfrequent
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Tao Cui, MD;Ryan Terlecki, MD;Majid Mirzazadeh, MD |
| Journal | australian journal of chemistry |
| Year | 2015 |
| DOI |
10.1002/sm2.85
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.