| Title |
Bulkamid (PAHG) in mixed urinary incontinence: What is the outcome?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00192-017-3332-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Mohr, Christine Marthaler, Sara Imboden, Ash Monga, Michel D. Mueller, Annette Kuhn |
| Abstract |
Mixed urinary incontinence (MUI), defined as mixed symptoms of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and overactive bladder (OAB), is a difficult entity if conservative treatment has failed. Cure rates are low compared with SUI, particularly the OAB component, may deteriorate after sling insertion. Bulking agents pose an appealing alternative for the treatment of MUI. They have shown beneficial effect in small case studies, but larger series are lacking. The aim of this prospective study was an analysis of treatment efficacy and safety profile of the bulking agent, Bulkamid, in female patients with MUI. One hundred fifty-four women with MUI symptoms (components of SUI/OAB within the limits of 60-40% either way) received bulking therapy with polyacrylamide hydrogel (Bulkamid). Patients were followed-up 3 months postoperatively. Primary outcome was the domain Incontinence impact on the King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). Secondary outcomes were the other KHQ domains, visual analog scale (VAS), and International Continence Society (ICS) standardized pad weight test as objective measurement of incontinence. Statistically significant improvements were found for all KHQ domains, pad weight test, and the visual analog scale (VAS) before and after bulking. Overall complication rate was 13%. This study has shown improvement in MUI after bulking therapy according to both subjective and objective outcomes. We can advocate bulking therapy for treating MUI, as it is simple and safe and shows both objective and subjective improvement and relief. Long-term results (up to 1 year) are awaited. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 31 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,477,297
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#1,438
of 2,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,721
of 323,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Urogynecology Journal & Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.