Potential risk factors and outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder urinary diversion

Management of urinary incontinence after radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder: A scoping review of international practices

OBJECTIVES

To identify and describe international practice in incontinence management after radical cystectomy and orthotopic neobladder.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic scoping review following the methodology of the Joanne Briggs Institute was conducted in which the application searched 15 data sources to identify papers published in English, from 1979 to 2022.

RESULTS

Of the 16 papers that met the eligibility criteria, articles in Eastern countries mainly focus on the effect of conservative treatment, while in Western countries, more attention is paid to the effect of surgical treatment. Clinical characteristics of patients included conservative treatment failure, duration of post-operative intervention and unique differential treatment of male and female patients. Reported factors influencing the achievement of urinary incontinence (UI) include lack of evidence to guide management practice, limited value of conservative treatment, high risk of surgical treatment and uncertainty of efficacy; currently, early behavioural research and multimodal rehabilitation training have good results.

CONCLUSIONS

UI in neobladder patients is a distressing condition that is difficult to treat and often requires high-quality rehabilitation guidance and surgical intervention. Further research to address current knowledge gaps is important to inform practice.

[ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER IMPLANTATION AFTER ILEAL NEOBLADDER RECONSTRUCTION: A CASE REPORT]

A 62-year-old man was referred to our department for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation as treatment for total incontinence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Preoperative cystoscopy revealed bladder tumor that was proven to be high-grade micropapillary urothelial carcinoma by transurethral resection. We performed radical cystectomy with ileal neobladder reconstruction, followed by AUS implantation to treat incontinence. The AUS implantation procedure was performed 5 months after total cystectomy and resulted in significant continence recovery. To date, AUS implantation after neobladder reconstruction has not been reported in Japan, although some case series have described this procedure overseas. In our view, AUS implantation is a useful therapeutic option for incontinence in patients undergoing neobladder reconstruction.

Artificial urinary sphincter

Although currently still the gold standard treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) (AMS800) is an invasive procedure with associated risks factors. In this paper, we aim to outline what the scientific literature and what we personally believe are the factors that are useful and/or necessary to mitigate these risks, including both patient factors and surgeon factors. We also review special populations, including transcorporal (TC) AUS approach, AUS with inflatable penile prosthesis, AUS after male urethral sling, AUS erosion management, and AUS after orthotopic urinary diversion.

Artificial urinary sphincters for male stress urinary incontinence: current perspectives

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), which has evolved over many years, has become a safe and reliable treatment for stress urinary incontinence and is currently the gold standard. After 4 decades of existence, there is substantial experience with the AUS. Today AUS is most commonly placed for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Only a small proportion of urologists routinely place AUS. In a survey in 2005, only 4% of urologists were considered high-volume AUS implanters, performing >20 per year. Globally, ~11,500 AUSs are placed annually. Over 400 articles have been published regarding the outcomes of AUS, with a wide variance in success rates ranging from 61% to 100%. Generally speaking, the AUS has good long-term outcomes, with social continence rates of ~79% and high patient satisfaction usually between 80% and 90%. Despite good outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients, generally ~25%, will require revision surgery, with the rate of revision increasing with time. Complications requiring revision include infection, urethral atrophy, erosion, and mechanical failure. Most infections are gram-positive skin flora. Urethral atrophy and erosion lie on a spectrum resulting from the same problem, constant urethral compression. However, these two complications are managed differently. Mechanical failure is usually a late complication occurring on average later than infection, atrophy, or erosions. Various techniques may be used during revisions, including cuff relocation, downsizing, transcorporal cuff placement, or tandem cuff placement. Patient satisfaction does not appear to be affected by the need for revision as long as continence is restored. Additionally, AUS following prior sling surgery has comparable outcomes to primary AUS placement. Several new inventions are on the horizon, although none have been approved for use in the US at this point.

The Artificial Urinary Sphincter in the Management of Incontinence

Despite the emergence of different devices in the treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence, the AMS 800 (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN) remains the gold standard for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men. We reviewed the current literature regarding the indications, surgical principles, outcomes, and complications of artificial urinary sphincter placement for stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. Despite all the available information, heterogeneous data, different success definitions, and the lack of high-quality prospective studies with long-term follow-up, it is difficult to compare outcomes between studies. In spite of these, the perineal implantation of a single cuff artificial urinary sphincter has withstood the test of time.

Revision Techniques After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Failure in Men: Results From a Multicenter Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results of various single-component artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) revision techniques for continued/recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Although AUS placement for male SUI has a high rate of success, revisions may be performed for mechanical failure of an isolated component or continued/recurrent SUI.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1993 to 2012, 90 AUS revisions including urethral cuff downsizing (19), pressure-regulating balloon replacement (18), cuff repositioning (11), or tandem cuff placement (42) were performed at 2 institutions. End points included reoperation, incontinence failure, and urethral erosion. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare continuous variables, and the log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

Mean age was 70.2 years, and median follow-up was 33.6 months. Median time to revision was 28.9 months. Tandem cuff placement was associated with a lower rate of incontinence failure (P = .02), whereas cuff repositioning was associated with a higher rate of incontinence failure (P = .02). An increased rate of mechanical failure was observed with cuff downsizing (P = .01). Among options for revision (1) cuff downsizing is associated with a higher rate of mechanical failure, and (2) cuff repositioning with the same size is associated with a higher rate of incontinence failure, whereas (3) tandem cuff placement is associated with a lower rate of recurrent SUI compared to other types of AUS revision.

CONCLUSION

Cuff repositioning is associated with an increased rate of persistent incontinence after AUS revision whereas tandem cuff placement is associated with a lower rate of recurrent or persistent incontinence.