000			nab a22 7a 4500
999			_c17823 _d17823
003			PC17823
005			20240409140523.0
008			240409b xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040			_cH12O
041			_aeng
100			_92936 _aOspina Galeano, Irma Amparo _eUrología
245	0	0	_aExtradural implantation of sacral anterior root stimulator in spinal cord injury patients. _h[artículo]
260			_bNeurourology and urodynamics, _c2016
300			_a35(8):970-4.
500			_aFormato Vancouver: Castaño Botero JC, Ospina Galeano IA, Gómez llanes R, Lopera Toro A. Extradural implantation of sacral anterior root stimulator in spinal cord injury patients. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016 Nov;35(8):970-974.
501			_aPMID: 26208239
504			_aContiene 24 referencias
520			_aAims: To evaluate the efficacy and complications of extradural sacral anterior root stimulation (SARS) implantation in patients with neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) resulting from spinal cord injury (SCI). Materials and methods: A retrospective study was conducted between 2009 and 2013, on consecutive patients with NDO associated with SCI that underwent SARS implantation. We evaluated those factors related to clinical symptoms such as urinary infection rate, erections, and episodes of autonomic dysreflexia. Data from cystometric bladder capacity (CBC) and post-void residual (PVR) volume were also analyzed. Results: Of the 104 patients included in the study, 95 (91%) patients were men with a mean (standard deviation) (SD) age of 38 (10) years. Mean (SD) time between the onset of SCI and the SARS was 78.2 (59.0) months. At baseline, 95 (91%) patients had urinary infections as compared with 16 (15%) after treatment, P < 0.001. The percentage of patients that had urinary incontinence was significantly higher at baseline than that observed after SARS, 100% versus 14%, respectively, P < 0.001. Similar results were obtained regarding dysreflexia, P < 0.001. After SARS, the mean (SD) bladder capacity was 362 (108) ml and 98 (94%) patients had a bladder capacity greater than 400 ml. As regard to the adverse effects, six patients (6%) required a suburethral mesh implant and two (2%) patients had an infection, 4 and 5 months after SARS, respectively. Conclusions: Extradural implantation of SARS seems to be an effective and safe procedure in patients with spinal cord injury and neurogenic detrusor overactivity. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:970-974, 2016.
710			_9220 _aServicio de Urología
856			_uhttp://pc-h12o-es.m-hdoct.a17.csinet.es/pdf/pc/1/pc17823.pdf _ySolicitar documento
942			_2ddc _cART _n0