Impact of previous urethroplasty on the outcome after artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a prospective evaluation

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.

Is the Standard Artificial Urinary Sphincter AMS 800 Still a Treatment Option for the Irradiated Male Patient Presenting with a Devastated Bladder Outlet?

BACKGROUND

Circular urethral compression with an artificial sphincter allows control of voiding, even in patients with severe stress urinary incontinence, but it heightens the risk of urethral atrophy and erosion. This study of one of the largest populations of patients treated with radiotherapy investigates the additive effect of the post-radiogenic stricture of the membranous urethra/bladder neck on AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter outcomes.

METHODS

In a retrospective multicenter cohort study, we analyzed patients fitted with an AMS 800, comparing those who had received radiotherapy with patients presenting a devastated bladder outlet (stricture of the membranous urethra/bladder neck). We determined the correlation between these groups of patients using both univariate and stepwise adjusted multivariate regression. The revision-free interval was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier plot and compared by applying the log-rank test. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 123 irradiated patients we identified, 62 (50.4%) had undergone at least one prior desobstruction for bladder-neck/urethra stenosis. After a mean follow-up of 21 months, the latter tended to achieve social continence less frequently (25.7% vs. 35%; p = 0.08). Revision was required significantly more often for this group (43.1% vs. 26.3%; p = 0.05) due to urethral erosion in 18 of 25 cases. A stenosis recurred in five cases; desobstruction was performed in two cases, leading to erosion in both. Multivariate analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of revision when recurrent stenosis necessitated at least two prior desobstructions (HR 2.8; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A devastated bladder outlet is associated with a lower proportion of men with social continence and a significantly higher need for revision compared with irradiated patients without a history of urethral stenosis. Alternative surgical procedures should be discussed beforehand, especially in cases of recurrent urethral stenosis.

ATOMS (Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System) in Patients with Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence and Previously Treated Urethral Stricture or Bladder Neck Contracture

(1) Background: Male stress incontinence in patients with previously treated urethral or bladder neck stricture is a therapeutic challenge. The efficacy and safety of the adjustable trans-obturator male system (ATOMS) in these patients is unknown. (2) Methods: All patients with primary ATOMS implants in our institution between 2014 and 2021 were included. The outcomes of patients with previously treated urethral or bladder neck stricture (≥6 months before ATOMS implant) and stable 16Ch urethral caliber were compared to those without a history of stricture. The primary endpoint was the dry patient rate, defined as the pad test ≤ 20 mL/day, and complication rate, including device removal. The secondary variable was self-perceived satisfaction using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed. (3) Results: One hundred and forty-nine consecutive patients were included, twenty-one (14%) previously treated for urethral or bladder neck stricture (seven urethroplasty, nine internal urethrotomy and five bladder neck incision). After ATOMS adjustment, 38% of the patients with treated stricture were continent compared to 83% of those without (p < 0.0001). After weighted matched observations using propensity score pairing, the proportion of continent patients without a previous stricture was 56% (p = 0.236). Complications occurred in 29% of the patients with stricture and in 20% of those without (p = 0.34). The severity of the complications was distributed evenly among the groups (p = 0.42). Regarding self-perceived satisfaction with the implant, 90% of the patients with stricture perceived the results satisfactorily (PGI-I 1−3) compared to 97% of the rest (p = 0.167). Stricture was associated with radiotherapy (p < 0.0001) and time from prostatectomy to implantation (p = 0.012). There was a moderate correlation between previous stricture and the severity of incontinence, both evaluated according to the 24-h pad test (Rho = 0.378; p < 0.0001) and the ICIQ-SF questionnaire (Rho = 0.351; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis for the factors predictive of failure after ATOMS adjustment revealed previous stricture (OR 4.66; 95% CI 1.2−18.87), baseline 24-h pad test (per 100 mL, OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.09−1.52) and final cushion volume (per mL, OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.19−1.55). This model predicted dryness with an AUC of 92%. After the PSMATCH procedure using a propensity score, the model remained unchanged, with the previous stricture (OR 8.05; 95% CI 1.08−110.83), baseline 24-h pad test (per 100 mL, OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.15−2.26) and final cushion volume (per mL, OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17−2) being independent predictors and an AUC of 93%. (4) Conclusions: ATOMS can be used to treat male stress incontinence in patients with a history of stricture, although the effectiveness of the device is reduced. On the other hand, the security and perceived satisfaction were equivalent for both groups.

Early Revision after Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation Does Not Impair the Long-Term Treatment Success

INTRODUCTION

After implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) due to stress urinary incontinence, in some cases revision procedures may be necessary. This is mostly due to device infection or cuff erosion in the long term. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of early revision procedures (prior to or immediately after AUS activation) on the long-term outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent primary AUS implantation between 2006 and 2019. Patients with previous radiotherapy, urethroplasty, urethral stent placement, or repeat AUS implantation were excluded. Early revision was defined as prior to or immediately after AUS activation and comprised pump repositioning or cuff size adaptation due to difficulties in using the pump, persistent urinary incontinence, or urinary retention. Patients were compared with regard to complication rates, functional outcome, and patient satisfaction. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze risk factors for early AUS revision. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated explantation-free survival.

RESULTS

A total of 250 patients were included. Twenty patients (8%) required early revision (pump repositioning in 15 cases [75%], cuff downsizing in 3 cases [15%], and cuff upsizing in 2 cases [10%]). Mean follow-up was 78.6 months. 96.4% of all patients were objectively continent at the time of last follow-up without differences between both groups, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. No differences with regard to mechanical implant failure, tissue atrophy, and AUS explantation due to cuff erosion or implant infection were observed. Explantation-free survival was comparable in both groups. On univariable logistic regression analysis, coronary artery disease and transcorporal cuff placement were associated with early AUS revision.

CONCLUSION

Early revision after AUS implantation can be performed without negative impact on the long-term outcome.

Transcorporal vs. bulbar artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients with fragile urethra

PURPOSE

To compare transcorporal vs bulbar artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with fragile urethra and to investigate the risk factors of AUS explantation in this population.

METHODS

The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2004 and 2020 in 16 centers were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was device explantation-free survival. Only patients with a fragile urethra were included in the present analysis. Fragile urethra was defined as a urethra carrying a high risk of cuff erosion because of prior radiotherapy and/or history of AUS explantation and/or history of urethral stricture surgery. The patients were divided in two groups according to the implantation site: bulbar vs transcorporal.

RESULTS

464 patients were included for analysis. 88 patients underwent a transcorporal AUS implantation and 376 underwent a bulbar AUS implantation. Explantation-free survival was similar in both groups (estimated 5-year explantation free survival rates 55.3% vs. 58.4%; p=0.98). In the subgroup of patients with a history of previous AUS explantation, transcorporal approach tended to bring longer explantation-free survival (2-year explantation-free survival: 61.9% vs. 58.2%; p=0.096). In multivariate analysis, the only risk factor of shorter explantation-free survival was the history of previous AUS explantation (HR=2.65; p=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Transcorporal AUS implantation was not associated with longer explantation-free survival. History of previous AUS explantation was the only risk factor associated with shorter explantation-free survival and this subgroup of patients may be the only one to draw benefits of transcorporal AUS implantation.

[Urethro-vesical anastomosis reconstruction using extra-peritoneal robot-assisted laparoscopy for anastomotic stenosis after radical prostatectomy]

INTRODUCTION

Urethro-vesical anastomosis stenosis following radical prostatectomy is a rare complication but represents a challenging situation. While the first-line treatment is endoscopic, recurrences after urethrotomies require a radical approach. We present the updated results of our patient's cohort treated by pure robotic anastomosis refection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, single-center study focusing on one surgeon's experience. Patients presented an urethro-vesical stricture following a radical prostatectomy. Each patient received at least one endoscopic treatment. The procedure consisted of a circumferential resection of the stenosis, followed by a re-anastomosis with well-vascularized tissue. We reviewed the outcomes in terms of symptomatic recurrences and continence after the reconstructive surgery.

RESULTS

From April 2013 to May 2020, 8 patients underwent this procedure. Half of the patients had previously been treated with salvage radio-hormonotherapy. The median age was 70 years (64-76). The mean operative time was 109minutes (60-180) and blood loss was 120cc (50-250). One patient had an early postoperative complication, with vesico-pubic fistula. The average length of stay was 4.6 days (3-8). Mean follow-up was 24.25 months (1-66). Half of the patients experienced a recurrence at a median time of 8.25 months (6-11) after surgery. Five patients experienced incontinence of which 3 required an artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

CONCLUSION

Extra-peritoneal robot-assisted urethro-vesical reconstruction is feasible and safe to manage bladder neck stricture after radical prostatectomy. The risk of postoperative incontinence is high, justifying preoperative information.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.