Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis: Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application

Jerzy B. Gajewski, Michael B. Chancellor, C. F Douglas Ackman, Rodney A. Appell, James Bennett, Joseph Binard, Timothy B. Boone, Michael P. Chetner, Julie Ann Crewalk, Alfredo Defalco, Jenelle Foote, Bruce Green, Saad Juma, Suk Young Jung, Todd A. Linsenmeyer, Joseph N. Macaluso, Robert MacMillan, Michael Mayo, Hideo Ozawa, Claus G. RoehrbornJoseph Schmidt, Patrick J. Shenot, Anthony Stone, Albert Vazquez, Wylly Killorin, David A. Rivas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

37 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: We present the experience of the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group with removal of the UroLume endoprosthesis. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 neurologically impaired patients were enrolled in the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group for detrusor external sphincter dyssynergia application. Analysis was performed in 2 groups of patients in which the device was removed during insertion and after implantation, respectively. Results: Device retrieval was required during insertion in 21 patients (13%) mainly due to misplacement or migration in 17. Extraction was done with minimal complications and in all but 2 cases subsequent UroLume implantation was successful. Of 158 men with the device in place 31 (19.6%) required removal. In 34 procedures 44 devices were removed, mainly due to migration. Time from implantation to removal ranged from 4 days to 66 months (mean 22 months). The UroLume was removed en bloc in 20 cases and in parts or wire by wire in 19. The majority of patients had no or minimal complications after extraction. Only 2 patients had serious temporary complications, including bleeding and urethral injury, with no lasting consequences. No malignancy developed as a result of UroLume insertion. Conclusions: While there is a potential for urethral injury and bleeding, UroLume endoprosthesis removal is largely a simple procedure with minimal complications and consequences.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)773-776
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume163
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2000

Fingerprint

Ataxia
Equipment and Supplies
Multicenter Studies
Hemorrhage
Wounds and Injuries
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Bladder, neurogenic
  • Prosthesis
  • Stent
  • Urethra
  • Urination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Gajewski, J. B., Chancellor, M. B., Ackman, C. F. D., Appell, R. A., Bennett, J., Binard, J., ... Rivas, D. A. (2000). Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis: Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application. Journal of Urology, 163(3), 773-776.

Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis : Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application. / Gajewski, Jerzy B.; Chancellor, Michael B.; Ackman, C. F Douglas; Appell, Rodney A.; Bennett, James; Binard, Joseph; Boone, Timothy B.; Chetner, Michael P.; Crewalk, Julie Ann; Defalco, Alfredo; Foote, Jenelle; Green, Bruce; Juma, Saad; Jung, Suk Young; Linsenmeyer, Todd A.; Macaluso, Joseph N.; MacMillan, Robert; Mayo, Michael; Ozawa, Hideo; Roehrborn, Claus G.; Schmidt, Joseph; Shenot, Patrick J.; Stone, Anthony; Vazquez, Albert; Killorin, Wylly; Rivas, David A.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 163, No. 3, 03.2000, p. 773-776.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Gajewski, JB, Chancellor, MB, Ackman, CFD, Appell, RA, Bennett, J, Binard, J, Boone, TB, Chetner, MP, Crewalk, JA, Defalco, A, Foote, J, Green, B, Juma, S, Jung, SY, Linsenmeyer, TA, Macaluso, JN, MacMillan, R, Mayo, M, Ozawa, H, Roehrborn, CG, Schmidt, J, Shenot, PJ, Stone, A, Vazquez, A, Killorin, W & Rivas, DA 2000, 'Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis: Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application', Journal of Urology, vol. 163, no. 3, pp. 773-776.
Gajewski JB, Chancellor MB, Ackman CFD, Appell RA, Bennett J, Binard J et al. Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis: Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application. Journal of Urology. 2000 Mar;163(3):773-776.
Gajewski, Jerzy B. ; Chancellor, Michael B. ; Ackman, C. F Douglas ; Appell, Rodney A. ; Bennett, James ; Binard, Joseph ; Boone, Timothy B. ; Chetner, Michael P. ; Crewalk, Julie Ann ; Defalco, Alfredo ; Foote, Jenelle ; Green, Bruce ; Juma, Saad ; Jung, Suk Young ; Linsenmeyer, Todd A. ; Macaluso, Joseph N. ; MacMillan, Robert ; Mayo, Michael ; Ozawa, Hideo ; Roehrborn, Claus G. ; Schmidt, Joseph ; Shenot, Patrick J. ; Stone, Anthony ; Vazquez, Albert ; Killorin, Wylly ; Rivas, David A. / Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis : Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application. In: Journal of Urology. 2000 ; Vol. 163, No. 3. pp. 773-776.
@article{c17a23a988b045089030db9e4aa6f7fa,
title = "Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis: Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application",
abstract = "Purpose: We present the experience of the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group with removal of the UroLume endoprosthesis. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 neurologically impaired patients were enrolled in the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group for detrusor external sphincter dyssynergia application. Analysis was performed in 2 groups of patients in which the device was removed during insertion and after implantation, respectively. Results: Device retrieval was required during insertion in 21 patients (13{\%}) mainly due to misplacement or migration in 17. Extraction was done with minimal complications and in all but 2 cases subsequent UroLume implantation was successful. Of 158 men with the device in place 31 (19.6{\%}) required removal. In 34 procedures 44 devices were removed, mainly due to migration. Time from implantation to removal ranged from 4 days to 66 months (mean 22 months). The UroLume was removed en bloc in 20 cases and in parts or wire by wire in 19. The majority of patients had no or minimal complications after extraction. Only 2 patients had serious temporary complications, including bleeding and urethral injury, with no lasting consequences. No malignancy developed as a result of UroLume insertion. Conclusions: While there is a potential for urethral injury and bleeding, UroLume endoprosthesis removal is largely a simple procedure with minimal complications and consequences.",
keywords = "Bladder, neurogenic, Prosthesis, Stent, Urethra, Urination",
author = "Gajewski, {Jerzy B.} and Chancellor, {Michael B.} and Ackman, {C. F Douglas} and Appell, {Rodney A.} and James Bennett and Joseph Binard and Boone, {Timothy B.} and Chetner, {Michael P.} and Crewalk, {Julie Ann} and Alfredo Defalco and Jenelle Foote and Bruce Green and Saad Juma and Jung, {Suk Young} and Linsenmeyer, {Todd A.} and Macaluso, {Joseph N.} and Robert MacMillan and Michael Mayo and Hideo Ozawa and Roehrborn, {Claus G.} and Joseph Schmidt and Shenot, {Patrick J.} and Anthony Stone and Albert Vazquez and Wylly Killorin and Rivas, {David A.}",
year = "2000",
month = "3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "163",
pages = "773--776",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis

T2 - Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application

AU - Gajewski, Jerzy B.

AU - Chancellor, Michael B.

AU - Ackman, C. F Douglas

AU - Appell, Rodney A.

AU - Bennett, James

AU - Binard, Joseph

AU - Boone, Timothy B.

AU - Chetner, Michael P.

AU - Crewalk, Julie Ann

AU - Defalco, Alfredo

AU - Foote, Jenelle

AU - Green, Bruce

AU - Juma, Saad

AU - Jung, Suk Young

AU - Linsenmeyer, Todd A.

AU - Macaluso, Joseph N.

AU - MacMillan, Robert

AU - Mayo, Michael

AU - Ozawa, Hideo

AU - Roehrborn, Claus G.

AU - Schmidt, Joseph

AU - Shenot, Patrick J.

AU - Stone, Anthony

AU - Vazquez, Albert

AU - Killorin, Wylly

AU - Rivas, David A.

PY - 2000/3

Y1 - 2000/3

N2 - Purpose: We present the experience of the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group with removal of the UroLume endoprosthesis. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 neurologically impaired patients were enrolled in the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group for detrusor external sphincter dyssynergia application. Analysis was performed in 2 groups of patients in which the device was removed during insertion and after implantation, respectively. Results: Device retrieval was required during insertion in 21 patients (13%) mainly due to misplacement or migration in 17. Extraction was done with minimal complications and in all but 2 cases subsequent UroLume implantation was successful. Of 158 men with the device in place 31 (19.6%) required removal. In 34 procedures 44 devices were removed, mainly due to migration. Time from implantation to removal ranged from 4 days to 66 months (mean 22 months). The UroLume was removed en bloc in 20 cases and in parts or wire by wire in 19. The majority of patients had no or minimal complications after extraction. Only 2 patients had serious temporary complications, including bleeding and urethral injury, with no lasting consequences. No malignancy developed as a result of UroLume insertion. Conclusions: While there is a potential for urethral injury and bleeding, UroLume endoprosthesis removal is largely a simple procedure with minimal complications and consequences.

AB - Purpose: We present the experience of the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group with removal of the UroLume endoprosthesis. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 neurologically impaired patients were enrolled in the North American UroLume Multicenter Study Group for detrusor external sphincter dyssynergia application. Analysis was performed in 2 groups of patients in which the device was removed during insertion and after implantation, respectively. Results: Device retrieval was required during insertion in 21 patients (13%) mainly due to misplacement or migration in 17. Extraction was done with minimal complications and in all but 2 cases subsequent UroLume implantation was successful. Of 158 men with the device in place 31 (19.6%) required removal. In 34 procedures 44 devices were removed, mainly due to migration. Time from implantation to removal ranged from 4 days to 66 months (mean 22 months). The UroLume was removed en bloc in 20 cases and in parts or wire by wire in 19. The majority of patients had no or minimal complications after extraction. Only 2 patients had serious temporary complications, including bleeding and urethral injury, with no lasting consequences. No malignancy developed as a result of UroLume insertion. Conclusions: While there is a potential for urethral injury and bleeding, UroLume endoprosthesis removal is largely a simple procedure with minimal complications and consequences.

KW - Bladder, neurogenic

KW - Prosthesis

KW - Stent

KW - Urethra

KW - Urination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18544406752&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18544406752&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 10687974

AN - SCOPUS:18544406752

VL - 163

SP - 773

EP - 776

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 3

ER -