A trial of devices for urinary incontinence after treatment for prostate cancer.
A trial of devices for urinary incontinence after treatment for prostate cancer.
复制标题
前列腺癌治疗后尿失禁装置的试验。
DOI：
10.1111/bju.13016
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
Macaulay M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Macaulay M
Objective比较前列腺癌治疗后持续性尿失禁（>1年）患者使用的三种尿失禁管理装置和吸收垫的性能。Patients and MethodsRandomised，对照试验纳入56名男性，随访1年。对三种器械进行了为期3周的试验：鞘管引流系统、体戴式小便器（BWU）和阴茎夹。评估了器械和衬垫性能。在基线和随访时使用King's健康问卷测量生活质量（QoL）。评估了对产品的声明（预期用途）和显示（实际使用）偏好。结果发现性能存在实质性和显著性差异。当更换衬垫困难时，鞘管在长期使用（例如高尔夫和旅行）方面被评为“良好”;保持皮肤干燥，不渗漏，无气味，便于储存和旅行。BWU通常被评定为比鞘管差，主要用于类似活动，但用于无法使用鞘管（例如阴茎收缩）的男性，并且不适合坐姿活动。夹子适合游泳/锻炼等短时间的剧烈活动;它是最安全的，最不可能泄漏，最谨慎，但几乎所有的男人都形容它不舒服或痛苦。这些护垫适合日常活动，最适合夜间使用;最容易使用，干燥时舒适，但最容易漏水，潮湿时最不舒服。有一个偏好的产品的混合物，以满足白天的需要;约三分之二的男性使用的垫和设备的组合后，测试与baseline.ConclusionsThis是第一次试验，系统地比较不同的男性的前列腺管理设备。垫和设备具有不同的优势，这使得它们特别适合某些情况和活动。大多数男性喜欢在晚上使用护垫，但在白天会选择护垫和设备的混合物。设备的局限性很重要，但可以通过更好的设计来克服。
ObjectiveTo compare the performance of three continence management devices and absorbent pads used by men with persistent urinary incontinence (>1 year) after treatment for prostate cancer.Patients and MethodsRandomised, controlled trial of 56 men with 1‐year follow‐up. Three devices were tested for 3 weeks each: sheath drainage system, body‐worn urinal (BWU) and penile clamp. Device and pad performance were assessed. Quality of life (QoL) was measured at baseline and follow‐up with the King's Health Questionnaire. Stated (intended use) and revealed (actual use) preference for products were assessed. Value‐for‐money was gathered.ResultsSubstantial and significant differences in performance were found. The sheath was rated as ‘good’ for extended use (e.g. golf and travel) when pad changing is difficult; for keeping skin dry, not leaking, not smelling and convenient for storage and travel. The BWU was generally rated worse than the sheath and was mainly used for similar activities but by men who could not use a sheath (e.g. retracted penis) and was not good for seated activities. The clamp was good for short vigorous activities like swimming/exercise; it was the most secure, least likely to leak, most discreet but almost all men described it as uncomfortable or painful. The pads were good for everyday activities and best for night‐time use; most easy to use, comfortable when dry but most likely to leak and most uncomfortable when wet. There was a preference for having a mixture of products to meet daytime needs; around two‐thirds of men were using a combination of pads and devices after testing compared with baseline.ConclusionsThis is the first trial to systematically compare different continence management devices for men. Pads and devices have different strengths, which make them particularly suited to certain circumstances and activities. Most men prefer to use pads at night but would choose a mixture of pads and devices during the day. Device limitations were important but may be overcome by better design.