Skip to main content
Log in

Magnetisches Harnröhrenverschlusssystem

Desaströser Verlauf nach Implantation zur Behandlung der weiblichen Belastungsinkontinenz

Magnetic urethral closure device

Negative outcome after implantation for the treatment of female urinary incontinence

  • Kasuistiken
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Wir berichten über einen desaströsen Verlauf nach Implantation eines magnetischen Harnröhrenverschlussmechanismus zur Behandlung einer Belastungsinkontinenz Grad°III. Kontinenz konnte dadurch jedoch nie erzielt werden. Durch Arrosion und Vernarbung um den retrosymphysär verbliebenen Anteil stenosierte die Urethra zunehmend, bis eine Spontanmiktion unmöglich und ein Einmalkatheterismus erforderlich wurde. Der Magnet war komplett zerbrochen, mehrere größere Stücke in die Harnblase penetriert, der Blasenhals zur Symphyse arrodiert und zahlreiche Partikel im kleinen Becken verstreut. Die Bruchstücke wurden weitgehend entfernt und letztendlich ein Blasenhalsverschluss mit suprapubischer Harnableitung durchgeführt.

Abstract

We report on a negative outcome after implantation of a magnetic urethral closure device, consisting of one part screwed into the pubic bone and one part as a vaginal cone, for the treatment of urinary stress incontinence grade III. Continence was never achieved for the patient. The urethra narrowed over time due to erosion and scarring and the patient started intermittent catheterization, because spontaneous micturition was not possible. The magnet was broken, the bladder neck was eroded, several fragments were found in the bladder, and numerous fragments were scattered throughout the small pelvis. Surgery consisted of removing most of the fragments, followed by bladder neck closure and suprapubic diversion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6

Literatur

  1. Gruneberger AD, Hennig GR, Bullemer F (1984) A magnet system for urethral closure in females. J Biomed Eng 6:102–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Gruneberger AD (1994) Magnetic closure with colposuspension in complicated recurrent incontinence. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 54:80–83

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gruneberger AD (1985) Development of a magnetic urethral closure device. A new procedure for the treatment of female urinary incontinence. Fortschr Med 103:521–524

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gruneberger AD (1991) Modification of the use of a magnetic device for urethral occlusion in recurrent incontinence. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 51:850–852

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jonsson FM, Siddiqui NY, Kawasaki A, Wu JM (2012) Long-term outcomes after stress urinary incontinence surgery. Obstet Gynecol 120:83–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Novara G, Artibani W, Barber MD et al (2010) Updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative data on colposuspensions, pubovaginal slings, and midurethral tapes in the surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 58:218–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gruneberger AD, Hennig GR (1983) A magnetic urethral closure device: preliminary report of an experimental study. J Urol 130:798–801

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gruneberger AD (1987) Development of a magnetic urethral closure and initial clinical experiences. Urologe A 26:106–111

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gruneberger AD, Hennig GR (1993) Development of a magnetic urethral closure device – an animal experiment study. Zentralbl Gynakol 115:328–331

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Demirci F, Petri E (2000) Perioperative complications of Burch colposuspension. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 11:170–175

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt. R. Anding, H. van Ahlen, S.C. Müller und S. Latz geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht. Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Latz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anding, R., van Ahlen, H., Müller, S. et al. Magnetisches Harnröhrenverschlusssystem. Urologe 54, 1010–1013 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-015-3844-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-015-3844-x

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation