The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation

Treatment strategies for revision surgery of artificial urinary sphincter: A review

Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) are an effective treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, infection, erosion, mechanical failure, atrophy, and balloon deterioration cause device malfunction in approximately half of patients by 10 years after implantation. Many patients desire to regain urinary continence and require revision surgery (RS), including device removal and simultaneous or delayed implantation. Patients for whom RS is considered should be examined physically and by interview for signs of infection. Urethral erosion should be assessed using cystoscopy. If there is infection or erosion, all devices should be removed first, and a new device should be implanted several months later. During the RS, after strong adhesion around the urethra, transcorporal cuff implantation is a safe choice. Device removal and simultaneous implantation can be performed in the absence of infection or erosion. If a long time has passed since device implantation, the entire device should be replaced due to device aging and deterioration; however, if the time is short, only the defective component need be replaced. Intraoperative assessment of urethral health is necessary for device removal and implantation. If the urethra is healthy, a new cuff can be placed in the same position as the old cuff was removed from; however, if the urethra is unhealthy, the cuff can be implanted in a more proximal/distal position, or a transcorporal cuff implant may be chosen. This article reviews the literature on diagnostic and treatment strategies for recurrent SUI in male patients with AUS and proposes a flowchart for AUS revision.

Prior male sling does not affect outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) with or without a prior male sling.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent AUS for PPUI from 2007 to 2022. The primary endpoint was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved social continence, defined as self-reported use of 0-1 pad/day. The secondary endpoints were device failure rates and device failure-free survival.

RESULTS

The analysis included 210 patients, with 30 (14.3%) having had prior slings and 180 (85.7%) without prior slings. After AUS insertion, 80.0% of patients with prior slings and 76.7% of those without prior slings achieved continence (0-1 pad/day). There were six (20.0%) and 53 (29.4%) device failures in patients with and without prior slings, respectively. The median device failure-free survival was not reached in patients with prior slings and was 8.9 years in patients without prior slings (P = 0.048). Limitations include retrospective nature and small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of AUS in patients with prior slings are similar to those without. Prior sling is associated with a longer device failure-free survival. AUS remains a viable option in patients who have persistent PPI after prior slings.

Transcroporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement With Closure of Corporal Bodies—A Long-Term Analysis of Functional Outcomes

Objectives

An artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The transcorporal AUS (TC) placement constitutes the main salvage option in high-risk patients suffering from SUI with fragile urethras. The literature analyzing long-term outcomes with respect to explantation rates, continence, and erectile function is scarce.

Methods and Patients

Retrospective data collection was performed in 2011. TC was applied according to a standardized protocol. TC was implanted after bulbar urethroplasty or double-cuff (DC) explantation. After TC placement, the tunica albuginea was closed in order to minimize the risk of postoperative bleedings and erectile dysfunction. Activation was performed 6 weeks postoperatively. Further follow-up (FU) was scheduled 6/24 months postoperatively and every 2 years thereafter. Primary/secondary endpoints were explantation/objective, subjective, and social continence rates. Objective or social continence was defined as the use of 0 pads/day or <2 pads/day, respectively. Thereupon, postoperative bleedings and erectile function were analyzed.

Results

A total of 39 high-risk patients were available for analysis. The median age was 72 years. In total, 84.6%, 10.3%, and 2.6% had a history of radical prostatectomy, TURP, and radical cystectomy, respectively. In total, 61.5% had a history of radiation therapy of the prostate, 41% had a history of urethral surgery, and 95% had a history of double cuff explantation. The median FU was 27 months. Objective, subjective, and social continence were 54.5%, 69.7%, and 78.8%, respectively. The median pad usage was 1 pad/day [1–2.5]. Only one patient suffered from a postoperative hematoma. In total, 15.4% of the patients were able to have an erection preoperatively, compared to 7.7% after TC placement. The estimated mean explantation-free survival of the TC was 83 months in the Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Conclusions

TC AUS implantation constitutes a viable salvage approach in high-risk SUI patients with a mean device survival of almost 7 years and high social continence rates of almost 80%. An intraoperative closure of the tunica albuginea after TC placement allows for very low rates of postoperative hematoma and supports postoperative erectile rigidity.

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Complications: Risk Factors, Workup, and Clinical Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review risk factors for AUS complications and present a systematic approach to their diagnosis and management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Established risk factors for AUS complications include catheterization, channel TURP, pelvic radiation, urethroplasty, anticoagulation, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, frailty index, hypertension, low albumin, and low testosterone. We present our algorithm for diagnosis and management of AUS complications. Despite being the gold standard of treatment for men with SUI, major and minor complications can occur at any point after AUS insertion. Careful consideration of the urologic, medical, and operative risk factors for each patient can help prevent complications. A systematic approach to early and late complications facilitates their identification and effective management. The evaluating urologist must have a thorough understanding of potential AUS complications in order to restore quality of life in men with bothersome SUI.