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

38 Scopus citations

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

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Removal of UroLume endoprosthesis: Experience of the North American study group for detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia application'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Gajewski, J. B., Chancellor, M. B., Ackman, C. F. D., Appell, R. A., Bennett, J., Binard, J., Boone, T. B., Chetner, M. P., Crewalk, J. A., Defalco, A., Foote, J., Green, B., Juma, S., Jung, S. Y., Linsenmeyer, T. A., Macaluso, J. N., MacMillan, R., Mayo, M., Ozawa, H., ... 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.