Table 2.
Efficacy outcome of 15 patients who underwent further analysis after a median follow-up of 70 months
| Variable | Value |
|---|---|
| Pad use per day | |
| Mean±SD | 1.8±2.1 |
| Median (range) | 1.0 (0-6.0) |
| Pad use per day, n (%) | |
| 0 or 1 dry safety pad | 7 (46.7) |
| 2 | 1 (6.7) |
| 3 | 2 (13.3) |
| >3 | 3 (20.0) |
| Excluded due to AUS implantation | 2 (13.3) |
| 50% Reduction in pad use, n (%) | |
| No | 5 (33.3) |
| Yes | 6 (40.0) |
| Missing preoperative data | 2 (13.3) |
| Exluded due to AUS implantation | 2 (13.3) |
| 24-Hour pad test (g) | |
| Mean±SD | 31.2±64.5 |
| Median (range) | 0 (0-209.0) |
| Treatment result (based on pad use and 24-hr pad test), n (%) | |
| Cured | 7 (46.7) |
| Improved | 2 (13.3) |
| Failed (including 2 patients who underwent AUS implantation) | 6 (40.0) |
| ICIQ-SF score | |
| Mean±SD | 9.5±6.6 |
| Median (range) | 8.0 (0-21.0) |
| IQoL total score | |
| Mean±SD | 66.4±31.6 |
| Median (range) | 72.7 (8.0-100) |
| PGI score | |
| Mean±SD | 2.2±1.6 |
| Median (range) | 2.0 (1.0-6.0) |
| VAS perineal | |
| Mean±SD | 0.4±0.7 |
| Median (range) | 0 (0-2.0) |
| VAS inguinal | |
| Mean±SD | 0.2±0.6 |
| Median (range) | 0 (0-2.0) |
SD, standard deviation; AUS, artificial urinary sphincter; ICIQ-SF, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form; IQoL, International Quality of Life score; PGI, patient’s global impression of improvement score; VAS, visual analogue scale.