Revisiting the penoscrotal approach to artificial urinary sphincter surgery: how does it compare to a perineal incision for initial implantation?

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Complications: A Narrative Review

Stress urinary incontinence is a financially burdensome and socially isolating problem and can be experienced by men as a result of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or other urologic surgery. Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement for stress urinary incontinence is considered the 'gold standard' for male stress urinary incontinence. While initially only placed by specialized prosthetic surgeons, changes in urologic training have made implantation of the device by general urologists more widespread. Additionally, even though a minority of urologists place the majority of implants, many urologists may find themselves caring for patients with these devices even if they have never placed them themselves. For this reason, it is paramount that the urologic surgeon implanting the device and those caring for patients with prostheses are familiar with the various perioperative and postoperative complications of AUS implantation. This review discusses the most commonly reported complications of AUS implantation as well as those that are rarely described. Knowledge of these potential complications is necessary in order to care for patients with urologic implants.

Primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter using the perineal and penoscrotal approaches: Functional results and assessment of reoperative procedures

INTRODUCTION

Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the standard treatment for severe stress urinary incontinence in men. While the perineal access is considered the gold standard, some authors have proposed penoscrotal AUS in order to facilitate the procedure. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the duration of survival without revision surgery (SSRC) according to the surgical approach for primary implantation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data from 1179 patients implanted in France between 1991 and 2020 with an AMS 800 AUS were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 762 men were implanted perineally (VP) and 417 penoscrotally (VPS).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 20 vs. 25months respectively. The groups were equivalent overall, apart from the use of anticoagulants (11% VP vs. 6.3% VPS P=0.014). In our population, 54% patients were considered as "dry" in the case of VPS vs. 42% for VP. There was no significant difference in terms of survival time without reoperation, revision, replacement or explantation. In univariate and multivariate analysis, age over 70years was predictive of more reinterventions, whereas the use of a 4.5cm cuff was protective, with hazard ratios of 1.42 (P=0.001) and 0.78 (P=0.04), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The penoscrotal approach does not appear to be associated with more complications, has good functional results and no significant difference in reoperation-free survival. A prospective multicenter non-inferiority study could be of interest to confirm our findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Twenty years later: is the scrotal one-incision AUS of value?

The artificial urinary sphincter, known as AMS 800, has been the gold standard for treating moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence in males for 40 years. Yet, the number of sphincters done globally is quite small and the majority of urologists doing them are infrequent implanters. Estimates for 2019 showed half of implanters did only one implant that year and worldwide only around 13,000 implantations were performed. The traditional two-incision technique of perineal exposure for cuff placement and abdominal incision for pump and pressure regulating balloon persists as the most common technique to surgically place an artificial urinary sphincter. Present estimates are that upwards of 80% are done via the perineal approach and that approach is the highly favored incision of large volume centers. The scrotal one-incision approach was invented by Wilson 20 years ago and was aimed at making the implantation of a sphincter quicker, easier and safer for the occasional implanter. These physicians perform 1-2 devices per year, comprise 60% of implanters who perform the surgery yearly, and implant 22% of all implanted devices. Our article targets these infrequent inserters discussing the history of the two techniques and what the authors have learned about the advantages and hazards of the one scrotal incision procedure over the last two decades.