메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
연세대학교 의과대학 Yonsei Medical Journal Yonsei Medical Journal 제51권 제6호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
883 - 887 (5page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Purpose: Reported incidence of urinary incontinence after a radical prostatectomy (RP) varies between studies. This may be due not only to the definition of incontinence applied, but also how the information is acquired. We investigated the differences in perception of post robot-assisted laparoscopic RP (RALP)urinary incontinence acquired through doctor interviews and patient-reported questionnaires. Materials and Methods: Of 238 consecutive men who underwent RALP by a single surgeon between July 2005 and February 2008, we evaluated 66 men using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ)at various time points after surgery. Each patient’s ICIQ results were considered to be the patient’s perceptions of urinary incontinence. The physician at the same time directly interviewed the patients about the number of pads used and considered complete continence to be equivalent to the use of no pads or safety liners. Results: Of the 66 patients, the physician reported that 34 (51.5%) had obtained complete continence. However, analysis of the questionnaires of these 34patients revealed that only 5 (14.7%) patients reported that they never leaked during the past 4 weeks. Most patients (11 patients, 32.4%) who did not use any pad did in fact reported leakage of a small or moderate amount of urine about once a day. Conclusion: Our results indicate that there are discrepancies in the perception of urinary incontinence between doctor and patient after RALP. Nonuse of pads is not equivalent to obtaining complete urinary continence. Therefore,the number of pads used is not a good measure to determine the status of complete urinary continence.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (15)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0