[Adjustable retropubic suburethral sling Remeex® in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: One-year results]

[Treatment of female recurrent or not stress urinary incontinence with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: Sub-urethral retropubic adjustable sling (Remeex)]

INTRODUCTION

Recommendations for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) due to intrinsic sphincteric deficiency (ISD) or recurrent, are complex. They accept the use of sub-urethral slings (BSU), if unsuccessful the artificial urinary sphincter. The objective was to report the results in terms of continence and morbidity of the Remeex® Adjustable BSU in the treatment of SUI by ISD recurrent or non-recurrent.

METHOD

Monocentric retrospective study of 70 patients with a mean age of 67.7 years (±12) operated of Remeex sling, between 2015 and 2019, was conducted. Preoperative and postoperative characteristics were analyzed from medical records. Two groups were analyzed: Group A (n=28) with no history of incontinence surgery and Group B (n=42) with history (recurrent). Patients who were totally continent (0 protection) and those who were socially continent (1 safety protection) were considered successful.

RESULT

Postoperative success rate was similar between groups B (90 %) and A (92%) with respectively: 64% versus 71% of totally continent patients, 26% versus 21% wearing safety protection. The postoperative complications were mainly Clavien II (28%) such as urinary tract infections (6%), transient urinary retention (3%) and de novo bladder overactivity (20%) with no significant statistical difference between the groups. Six patients were reoperated (Clavien III): BSU detension (1%), vaginal exposure (4%) (including one total material removal for infection), varitensor explantation (1%) or scar disunion (1%).

CONCLUSION

The Remeex® BSUA seems to lead to satisfactory perioperative results in patients with SUI with ISD recurrent or non-recurrent.

Narrative review of male urethral sling for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence: sling type, patient selection, and clinical applications

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following prostate treatment is a devastating complaint for many patients. While the artificial urinary sphincter is the gold standard treatment for male SUI, the urethral sling is also popular due to ease of placement, lack of mechanical complexity, and absence of manual dexterity requirement. A literature review was performed of male urethral sling articles spanning the last zz20 years using the PubMed search engine. Clinical practice guidelines were also reviewed for comparison. Four categories of male urethral sling were evaluated: the transobturator AdVance and AdVance XP, the bone-anchored InVance, the quadratic Virtue, and the adjustable sling series. Well selected patients with mild to moderate urinary incontinence and no prior history of radiation experienced the highest success rates at long-term follow up. Patients with post-prostatectomy climacturia also reported improvement in leakage after sling. Concurrent penile prosthesis and sling techniques were reviewed, with favorable short-term outcomes demonstrated. Male urethral sling is a user-friendly surgical procedure with durable long-term outcomes in carefully selected men with mild stress urinary incontinence. Multiple sling types are available with varying degrees of efficacy and complication rates. Longer follow-up and larger cohort sizes are needed for treatment of newer indications such as climacturia as well as techniques involving dual placement of sling and penile prosthesis.

Remeex® System Effectiveness in Male Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence

Background: When conservative management fails, patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are considered for surgical treatment. Simpler, more economical and less invasive surgical techniques, such as the Remeex^® system, have been developed. Objectives: To analyze the objective effectiveness of the Remeex^® system in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. To study survival and complication rates of the Remeex^® system in male SUI patients. Materials and methods: Prospective observational study between July 2015 and May 2020. Group A (n = 7; GA) patients with mild SUI. Group B (n = 22; GB) patients with moderate SUI. Group C (n = 18; GC) patients with severe SUI. Effectiveness was assessed by the number of patients achieving complete and partial dryness. Complete dryness was defined as patients using 0–1 safety pads per day; partial dryness as a >50% reduction in the number of pads used. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Student’s t-test. Chi2, Fisher’s exact test, ANOVA, and multivariate analysis. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Mean age 69.76 years, mean follow-up 33.52 months. Objective effectiveness was observed in 89.36% of patients with incontinence. The effectiveness was 85.71% in GA, 90.91% in GB and 88.89% in GC. There were no significant differences among groups (p = 1.0000). 34.04% of patients with an implant required at least one readjustment, while 66.00% did not require any. There were no significant differences among groups (p = 0.113) Chi2 = 4.352. 95.74% of implants remained in place by the end of follow-up. We observed complications in 17.02% of patients. Conclusions: Remeex^® system is an effective and safe method for male stress urinary incontinence treatment, regardless of the severity of the incontinence, with high survival and low complication and removal rates. System readjustments are required in one-third of the cases.

Current Management of Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. Radical prostatectomy and radiation beam therapy are the most common treatment options for localized prostate cancer and have different associated complications. The etiology of post prostatectomy incontinence is multifactorial. There is evidence in the literature that anatomic support and pelvic innervation are important factors in the etiology of post-prostatectomy incontinence. Among the many surgical and technical factors proposed in the literature, extensive dissection during surgery, damage to the neurovascular bundle and the development of postoperative fibrosis have a substantial negative impact on the continence status of men undergoing RP. Sparing of the bladder neck and anterior, and possibly posterior, fixation of the bladder-urethra anastomosis are associated with better continence rates. Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is multifactorial and the exact role of prostate surgery in the development of OAB is still under debate. There are several variables that could contribute to detrusor overactivity. Detrusor overactivity in patients after radical prostatectomy has been mainly attributed to a partial denervation of the bladder during surgery. However, together with bladder denervation, other hypotheses, such as the urethrovesical mechanism, have been described. Although there is conflicting evidence regarding the importance of conservative treatment after post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is still considered as the first treatment choice. Duloxetin, either alone or in combination with PFMT, may hasten recovery of urinary incontinence but is often associated with severe gastrointestinal and central nervous side effects. However, neither PFMT nor duloxetine may cure male stress urinary incontinence. The therapeutic decision and the chosen treatment option must be individualized for each patient according to clinical and social factors. During the recent years, the development of new therapeutic choices such as male sling techniques provided a more acceptable management pathway for less severe forms of urinary incontinence related to radical prostatectomy. Following this perspective, technological improvements and the emergence of new dedicated devices currently create the premises for a continuously positive evolution of clinical outcomes in this particular category of patients.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) and male Readjustment Mechanical External (REMEEX) system for post-prostatectomy incontinence

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) compared to male Readjustment Mechanical External (REMEEX) system for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis on adjustable device ATOMS compared to male REMEEX is presented. Studies on female or neurogenic incontinence were excluded. Primary objectives were evaluation of dryness (the proportion of patients with no-pad or one safety pad/day after device adjustment) and improvement between devices. Secondary objectives were complications and explant rate. They were estimated using a random-effect model. Statistical heterogeneity among studies was assessed using Cochran's Q test, Higgins's I² statistics and tau2.

RESULTS

Combined data of 29 observational studies with 1919 patients showed an equivalent proportion of patients treated with radical prostatectomy (p = .125) and previous radiation (p = .126). Dryness rate was 69.3% for ATOMS and 53.4% for male REEMEX (p = .008). Improvement rate was 90.8% for ATOMS and 80.2% for REMEEX (p = .007). Complication rate was 18.9% for ATOMS and 35.8% for REMEEX (p = .096) and explant rate was 5.5% for ATOMS and 13.9% for REMEEX (p = .027). Significant heterogeneity was evidenced, due to absence of randomized studies, variable incontinence severity baseline, difficulties for a common reporting of complications and difference in the follow-up. Differences observed between devices remained statistically significant when only studies with silicone-covered scrotal port (SSP) ATOMS and male REMEEX system II were considered.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the absence of direct comparison and the limitations observed ATOMS appears more effective than male REMEEX to treat PPI, and with less explant rate as reported in the literature.

Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Postradical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence - Is It the Best Option?

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can undoubtedly reduce quality of life and promote personal distress and psychosocial alienation. The frequency of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) counts on the characterization of urinary incontinence and the periods of patient follow-up. Operational therapeutics, for instance, urethral male slings and artificial urinary sphincters, are well-chosen as adequate and secure surgeries for male SUI in men with continual PPI when conservative treatment is ineffective. Over the former 2 decades, surgery has progressed regarding both operative approach and sling architecture. However, there are no guidelines about when surgery should be carried out and which is the most appropriate surgical option. In this review, we summarize recent advances in implantable devices for PPI and also discuss traditional surgical care. When we are planning the male PPI surgery, careful preoperative work-up should be performed and surgical method should be chosen according to the severity of the disease. Male sling is preferred in mild and moderate symptomatic patients with normal detrusor pressure and it is recommended to select traditional artificial urinary sphincter device in those with severe symptoms. It is expected that effective devices without adverse events will be developed with technical advances in near future.

Adjustable sling for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: systematic review and meta-analysis

Urinary incontinence after prostatectomy has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of the patient. The surgical treatment includes several models of male slings, such as adjustable slings. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjustable sling in the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. This is a systematic review of literature. The following electronic databases were searched until January 2018: PubMed®, Embase, CENTRAL and LILACS. The keywords used in the search strategies were: "prostatectomy" [Mesh], "urinary incontinence" [Mesh] and "suburethral slings" [Mesh]. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with or without Control Group, and follow-up of more than 12 months were included. Only one randomized study with high risk of bias was included and it concluded the effectiveness equivalence between adjustable and non-adjustable slings. All other studies were cases series with patients of varying levels of incontinence intensity and history of pelvic radiation therapy and previous surgeries. The meta-analysis for 0 pad in 24 hours demonstrated an effectiveness of 53%. For the 0 to 1 pad test in 24 hours, the meta-analysis resulted in an effectiveness of 69%. Risk factors for surgery failure include prior radiation, severity of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, and previous surgeries. The meta-analysis of the extrusion rate was 9.8% and the most commonly reported adverse effects were pain and local infection. Evidence of low quality indicates that adjustable slings are effective for treating post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, with frequency of adverse events similar to the surgical option considered gold standard (the artificial urinary sphincter implant).