PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10168542

Artificial urinary sphincter: evolution and development.

J M Choe·D R Staskin
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The first hydraulic artificial urinary sphincter came into clinical use in 1972. The original prototype has undergone many modifications resulting from advances in mechanical design, applications of new technology, and clinical experience. This evolutionary process has culminated in the AS800, the most frequently used hydraulic artificial urinary sphincter in the U.S. today. Although the AS800 device most closely approximates the biological urinary sphincter, clinical demands for an ever more ideal urinary sphincter require the ongoing improvement of this device.

Explore related subjects

Equipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleUrinary IncontinenceUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J M Choe, D R Staskin. 1997. Artificial urinary sphincter: evolution and development.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10168542/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Assisted vaginal delivery using the vacuum extractor.

Vacuum extractors have replaced forceps for many situations in which assistance is required to achieve vaginal delivery. Compared with metal-cup vacuum extractors, soft-cup devices are easier to use and cause fewer neonatal scalp injuries; however, they detach more frequently. Vacuum extractors can cause neonatal injury. These devices should be employed when indicated, usually for a nonreassuring fetal heart tracing or failure to progress in the second stage of labor. Complications may be minimized if the physician recognizes contraindications to the use of vacuum extraction. Complete documentation is essential.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2000

Intrafractional tumor position stability during computed tomography (CT)-guided frameless stereotactic radiation therapy for lung or liver cancers with a fusion of CT and linear accelerator (FOCAL) unit.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intrafractional tumor position stability during computed tomography (CT)-guided frameless stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for lung or liver cancers, we checked repeated CT scanning, with a fusion of CT and linear accelerator (FOCAL) unit. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The FOCAL unit is a combination of a linear accelerator (Linac), CT scanner, X-ray simulator (X-S), and carbon table, and is designed to achieve CT-guided SRT with daily CT positioning followed by immediate irradiation while patients keep reduced shallow respirations. To evaluate intrafractional tumor position stability, 50 lung or liver lesions in 20 patients were checked by repeated CT scanning just before and after irradiation, and the obtained images were compared. RESULTS: There was no case with the intrafractional error judged to be greater than 10 mm. In 68% of cases, the intrafractional positioning errors were negligible (0-5 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Using the FOCAL unit, SRT for lung or liver cancers could be performed with intrafractional positioning errors not greater than 10 mm.

Equipment Design↗
PubMed2000

Vena caval filters: a comprehensive review.

Hematologists are often asked to treat patients with venous thromboembolic disease. Although anticoagulation remains the primary therapy for venous thromboembolism, vena caval filters are an important alternative when anticoagulants are contraindicated. To assess the evidence supporting the utility of these devices, a comprehensive review of the English language literature was performed. Except for one randomized trial, the vena caval filter literature consists of case series or consecutive case series. The mean duration of follow-up for each of the 5 filter types varies from 6 to 18 months. All are about equally effective in the prevention of pulmonary embolism (2.6%-3.8%). Deep venous thrombosis (6%-32%) and inferior vena cava thrombosis (3.6%-11.2%) after filter placement vary widely among different filter types primarily because of differences in outcome assessment. Thrombosis at the insertion site is a common complication of filter placement (23%-36%). In view of the absence of randomized comparisons, no filter can be designated as superior in safety or efficacy. Vena caval filters represent a potentially important but poorly evaluated therapeutic modality in the prevention of pulmonary emboli. Randomized trials are necessary to establish the appropriate place for vena caval filters in the treatment of venous thromboembolic disease. (Blood. 2000;95:3669-3677)

Equipment Design↗