Urology
Volume 77, Issue 1 , Pages 211-216 , January 2011

Novel Artificial Urinary Sphincter in the Canine Model: The Tape Mechanical Occlusive Device

  • Bahaa S. Malaeb

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Bahaa S Malaeb, M.D., Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware Street Southeast, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55407
    • ,
  • Sean P. Elliott

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Joseph Lee

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • David W. Anderson

      Affiliations

    • GT Urological, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • ,
  • Gerald W. Timm

      Affiliations

    • Department of Urologic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
    • GT Urological, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Received 2 February 2010 ,Accepted 7 June 2010.

References 

  1. Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, et al. A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int. 2009;104:534–539
  2. Kundu SD, Roehl KA, Eggener SE, et al. Potency, continence and complications in 3,477 consecutive radical retropubic prostatectomies. J Urol. 2004;172:2227–2231
  3. Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 2007;51:648–658
  4. Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, et al. Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000;283:354–360
  5. Reynolds WS, Patel R, Msezane L, et al. Current use of artificial urinary sphincters in the United States. J Urol. 2007;178:578–583
  6. Elliott DS, Timm GW, Barrett DM. An implantable mechanical urinary sphincter: a new non hydraulic design concept. Urology. 1998;52:1151–1154
  7. Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, et al. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 9th ed.. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 2007;
  8. Elliott DS, Barrett DM. Mayo Clinic long-term analysis of the functional durability of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: a review of 323 cases. J Urol. 1998;159:1206–1208
  9. Swenson O. Internal devices for control of urinary incontinence. J Pediatr Surg. 1972;7:542–545
  10. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter. Urology. 1973;1:252–259
  11. Ali-el-Dein B, El-demerdash R, Kock NG, et al. A magnetic device for increasing the urethral resistance to flow: an experimental study in female dogs. BJU Int. 2000;85:150–154
  12. Wallin RF. A Practical Guide to ISO 10993: Part 1 –Introduction to the Standards. Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry Magazine. 1998;20:96–99

 This research was performed with government support under SBIR grant 2 R44 DK07 6397-02 from the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.

PII: S0090-4295(10)01496-2

doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.06.065

Urology
Volume 77, Issue 1 , Pages 211-216 , January 2011

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution