Treatment with an adjustable long-term implant for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence: The ProACT™ pivotal trial

Secondary placement of adjustable continence therapy (ProACT™) using open perineal technique: Case report of ProACT placement in a man with a devastated urethra following pelvic trauma and multiple AUS erosions

Adjustable continence therapy (ProACT) is an underutilized treatment option in men with stress urinary incontinence. The device is placed using a perineal percutaneous tunneled approach. We demonstrate a salvage technique for ProACT placement in a man with a devastated urethra following pelvic trauma and multiple artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) erosions who failed a tunneled approach. Our novel technique has utility in those at high risk for intra-operative trocar injury to the urinary tract with a tunneled approach. An open approach may also be a viable option in high-risk patients who have failed a conventional ProACT approach, male sling, or AUS.

Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: Techniques, Indications, and Pearls for Success

Purpose

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has detrimental and long-lasting effects on patients. Management of this condition is an evolving field with multiple options for surgical treatment. We sought to review the pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative considerations, post-operative care, and future directions for treatment of male SUI.

Methods

A literature review was performed using the PubMed platform to identify peer-reviewed, English-language articles published within the last 5 years pertaining to management of male stress urinary incontinence with an emphasis on devices currently on the market in the United States including the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), male urethral slings, and the ProACT^TM system. Patient selection criteria, success rates, and complications were compared between the studies.

Results

Twenty articles were included in the final contemporary review. Pre-operative workup most commonly included demonstration of incontinence, PPD, and cystoscopy. Definition of success varied by study; the most common definition used was social continence (0-1 pads per day). Reported rates of success were higher for the AUS than for male urethral slings (73-93% vs 70-90%, respectively). Complications for these procedures include urinary retention, erosions, infections, and device malfunction. Newer treatment options including adjustable balloon systems and adjustable slings show promise but lack long-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Patient selection remains the primary consideration for surgical decision-making for management of male SUI. The AUS continues to be the gold standard for moderate-to-severe male SUI but comes with inherent risk of need for revision. Male slings may be a superior option for appropriately selected men with mild incontinence but are inferior to the AUS for moderate and severe incontinence. Ongoing research will shed light on long-term results for newer options such as the ProACT and REMEEX systems.

Single center experience and long-term outcomes of implantable devices ACT and Pro-ACT (Uromedica, Irvin, CA, USA) - Adjustable continence Therapy for treatment of stress urinary incontinence

PURPOSE

In this study, we aimed at evaluating the long-term adjustable peri-urethral balloons (PUB) durability in both male and female with neurogenic or non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Each consecutive patient who underwent surgery for PUB placement before 2008 was included in this study. A PUB was proposed for patients with refractory to perineal reeducation stress urinary incontinence (SUI) caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency. There were no exclusion criteria. Demographic, clinical and perioperative data were collected retrospectively from our clinical follow-up notes.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients were included in the study. Median [IQR] follow-up was 5 years [1.8-11.2]. The 3 main causes of SUI were radical prostatectomy (n=82, 46.3%), idiopathic intrinsic sphincter deficiency (n=55, 31.1%) and neurogenic sphincter deficiency (n=32, 18.1%). Complete continence (no pad necessary) was achieved for 109 patients (61.6%). At the end of the follow-up, the PUB global survival rate was 47.5% (Fig. 1). Median [IQR] PUB survival without removal was 57.8 months [42.3-81.7]. PUB survival without failure rate was 68.4% accounting for a median [IQR] survival duration of 116.9 months [86.2-176.9] CONCLUSION: In this study, we evidenced acceptable long-term efficiency and survival of PUB in the management of SUI in both neurogenic and non-neurogenic population. Given those results it could be a good alternative to AUS on unfit or unwilling population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) and Adjustable Continence Therapy (ProACT) for male stress incontinence

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Urinary incontinence is one of the most serious complications of prostate cancer treatment. The objective of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) compared to Adjustable Continence Therapy (proACT) for male stress urinary incotinence according to literature findings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis on adjustable devices ATOMS and ProACT is presented. Studies on female or neurogenic incontinence were excluded. Differences between ATOMS and proACT in primary objective: dryness status (no-pad or one safety pad/day) after initial device adjustment, and in secondary objectives: improvement, satisfaction, complications and device durability, were estimated using random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies included in the meta-analysis was assessed using tau2, Higgins´s I2 statistics and Cochran´s Q test.

RESULTS

Combined data of 41 observational studies with 3059 patients showed higher dryness (68 vs. 55%; p = .01) and improvement (91 vs. 80%; p = .007) rate for ATOMS than ProACT. Mean pad-count (-4 vs. -2.5 pads/day; p = .005) and pad-test decrease (-425.7 vs. -211.4 cc; p < .0001) were also significantly lower. Satisfaction was higher for ATOMS (87 vs. 56%; p = .002) and explant rate was higher for proACT (5 vs. 24%; p < .0001). Complication rate for ProACT was also higher, but not statistically significant (17 vs. 26%; p = .07). Mean follow-up was 25.7 months, lower for ATOMS than ProACT (20.8 vs. 30.6 months; p = .02). The rate of working devices favoured ATOMS at 1-year (92 vs. 76; p < .0001), 2-years (85 vs. 61%; p = .0008) and 3-years (81 vs. 58%; p = .0001). Significant heterogeneity was evidenced, due to variable incontinence severity baseline, difficulties for a common reporting of complications, different number of adjustments and time of follow-up and absence of randomized studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations that studies available are exclusively descriptive and the follow-up is limited, literature findings confirm ATOMS is more efficacious, with higher patient satisfaction and better durability than ProACT to treat male stress incontinence.