(C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved “
“Purpose: Femal

(C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“Purpose: Females with recurrent stress urinary incontinence after anti-incontinence surgery represent a therapeutic challenge. In our experience and that selleckchem of others standard sling procedures have occasionally failed to correct these problems. We determined the effectiveness of various spiral sling techniques used in these cases to manage pipe stem urethras in which conventional slings had failed.

Materials and Methods: Between January 2007 and July 2008 we evaluated 30 female patients with persistent stress urinary incontinence after multiple failed anti-incontinence

procedures. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation consisted of history, physical selleck screening library examination, number of pads, Stamey score and quality of life questionnaires.

Results: We followed 28 patients a minimum of 15 months (range 15 to 18). Mean patient age was 60 years (range

36 to 84). At presentation patients had undergone a mean of 3.5 prior vaginal procedures (range 1 to 6) and used a mean of 7 pads daily (range 3 to 12). Of the patients 21 received a synthetic spiral sling, 5 received an autologous spiral sling (rectus fascia in 3 and fascia lata in 2) and 3 received a lateral spiral sling. Mean pad use decreased to 0.9 daily (range 0 to 2, p<0.05). Postoperative mean Stamey score decreased from 2.6 to 0.3 (p<0.05). Complications included unilateral vesical perforation in 3 patients with a contralateral lateral spiral sling. The overall success rate was 72%.

Conclusions: Salvage spiral Pevonedistat clinical trial sling techniques are a satisfactory alternative treatment for refractory stress urinary incontinence. When synthetic material cannot be used, autologous tissue can provide similar results. When the bladder is perforated unilaterally, a lateral spiral sling can be used on the contralateral side.”
“We investigated whether listeners are sensitive to (mis)matching accentuation patterns with respect to contrasts in the linguistic and visual context, using Event-Related Potentials. We presented

participants with displays of two pictures followed by a spoken reference to one of these pictures (e.g., “”the red ball”"). The referent was contrastive with respect to the linguistic context (utterance in the previous trial: e.g., “”the blue ball”") or with respect to the visual context (other picture in the display; e.g., a display with a red ball and a blue ball). The spoken reference carried a pitch accent on the noun (“”the red BALL”") or on the adjective (“”the RED ball”"), or an intermediate (‘neutral’) accentuation. For the linguistic context, we found evidence for the Missing Accent Hypothesis: Listeners showed processing difficulties, in the form of increased negativities in the ERPs, for missing accents, but not for superfluous accents.

Comments are closed.