Complications of the AdVance transobturator male sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence

Mitigating infections in implantable urological continence devices: risks, challenges, solutions, and future innovations. A comprehensive literature review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress urinary incontinence is a growing issue in ageing men, often following treatment for prostate cancer or bladder outflow obstruction. While implantable urological devices offer relief, infections are a significant concern. These infections can lead to device removal, negating the benefits and impacting patient outcomes. This review explores the risks and factors contributing to these infections and existing strategies to minimize them. These strategies encompass a multifaceted approach that considers patient-specific issues, environmental issues, device design and surgical techniques. However, despite these interventions, there is still a pressing need for further advancements in device infection prevention.

RECENT FINDINGS

Faster diagnostics, such as Raman spectroscopy, could enable early detection of infections. Additionally, biocompatible adjuncts like ultrasound-responsive microbubbles hold promise for enhanced drug delivery and biofilm disruption, particularly important as antibiotic resistance rises worldwide.

SUMMARY

By combining advancements in diagnostics, device design, and patient-specific surgical techniques, we can create a future where implantable urological devices offer men a significant improvement in quality of life with minimal infection risk.

The AdVance Sling and Male Sexual Function: A Prospective Analysis on the Impact of Pelvic Mesh on Erectile and Orgasmic Domains in Sexually Active Men With Postprostatectomy Stress Urinary Incontinence

Background

Transvaginal pelvic mesh surgery has been shown to cause female sexual dysfunction.

Aim

To evaluate the sexual function impact of AdVance male sling (MS) on erectile and orgasmic domains.

Methods

A review of a prospectively collected database was conducted in all sexually active men who underwent AdVance MS for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence between 2012 and 2018.

Outcomes

Patient demographics, clinical outcomes, and validated questionnaires such as the Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BMSFI), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) were reviewed at 6, 12 and 24 months.

Results

Of the total of 65 men who received AdVance sling, an increase in IIEF-5 score ≥5 points were reported in 10 (15%) patients with no patients complained of deteriorating erectile function at 24 months. The improvement in orgasmic function (Question 10 on IIEF-15) was reported in 22 (34%) patients while 3 (5%) patients reported lower orgasmic scores. The sexual domains scores in BMSFI were higher in 40 (62%) patients, especially with regards to sexual desire (Question 1 and 2) and satisfaction with sex life (Question 11). No patient reports pelvic or urethral pain. The reported improvement in erectile and orgasm scores remained similar throughout the 24-months follow-up period. All 20 patients with preoperative climacturia reported resolution of their symptoms during sexual activity. The overall PGI-I was 1.4 (1–3) and men with a higher continence rate were more likely to report better male sexual function (P = .044).

Clinical implications

AdVance MS appears to improve erectile and orgasmic domains, and there is a positive correlation between urinary continence and male sexual function.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths of this study include the prospective large patient population analyzed regarding the impact of MS on male sexual function with the use of validated instruments for erectile, orgasmic, and urinary domains. Limitations include single-centre data, relatively short-term follow-up study and lack of a comparative arm.

Conclusion

Despite the reported adverse effect of sexual dysfunction following pelvic mesh in the female population, the AdVance PMS appears to improve male sexual function with regards to erectile and orgasm domains.

Chung E, Wang J. The AdVance Sling and Male Sexual Function: A Prospective Analysis on the Impact of Pelvic Mesh on Erectile and Orgasmic Domains in Sexually Active Men With Postprostatectomy Stress Urinary Incontinence. Sex Med 2022;10:100529.

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.

Five-Year Results of a Prospective Multicenter Trial: AdVance XP for Postprostatectomy-Incontinence in Patients with Favorable Prognostic Factors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the security, value, and efficacy of the second-generation AdVance male sling XP (Boston Scientific®), after implementation in 2010 with advantageous modifications in the sling structure and needle shape, in a prospective multicenter long-term follow-up study.

METHODS

In total, 115 patients were included. Exclusion criteria were earlier incontinence (UI) surgery, nocturnal UI, former radiotherapy, or night-time incontinence. We also excluded patients with a functional urethra <1 cm in a preoperatively performed repositioning test. A consistent 24-h pad test, International Quality of Life (IQOL) score, visual analog pain scale (VAS), International Consultation-Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores were requested postoperatively.

RESULTS

The 24-month follow-up (114 patients) revealed 64.0% cured and 28.8% improved patients. Mean urine loss was reduced significantly to 19.0 g (p < 0.001). A mean PGI score of 1.5 and a mean VAS score of 0.2 were obtained. The 60-month follow-up (59 patients) revealed 57.6% cured and 25.4% improved patients. Mean urine loss was reduced significantly to 18.3 g (p < 0.001). A mean PGI score of 1.6 and a mean VAS score of 0.2 were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

The AdVance XP displays excellent continence results and secure effectiveness over a 5-year period. Moreover, these data are demonstrating low complication rates and improved quality of life in the long-term use of AdVance XP.

Urinary retention after AdVance™ Sling: A multi-institutional retrospective study

AIMS

To identify risk factors for urinary retention following AdVance™ Sling placement using preoperative urodynamic studies to evaluate bladder contractility.

METHODS

A multi-institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent an AdVance Sling for post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence from 2007 to 2019 was performed. Acute urinary retention (AUR) was defined as the complete inability to void or elevated post-void residual (PVR) leading to catheter placement or the initiation of intermittent catheterization at the first void trial postoperatively. Bladder contractility was evaluated based on preoperative urodynamics.

RESULTS

Of the 391 patients in this study, 55 (14.1%) experienced AUR, and 6 patients (1.5%) had chronic urinary retention with a median follow-up of 18.1 months. In total, 303 patients (77.5%) underwent preoperative urodynamics, and there was no significant difference between average PdetQmax (26.4 vs. 27.4 cmH₂ O), Qmax (16.6 vs. 16.2 ml/s), PVR (19.9 vs. 28.1 ml), bladder contractility index (108 vs. 103) for patients with or without AUR following AdVance Sling. Impaired bladder contractility preoperatively was not predictive of AUR. Time to postoperative urethral catheter removal was predictive of AUR (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.94; p = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic urinary retention after AdVance Sling placement is uncommon and acute retention is generally self-limiting. No demographic or urodynamic factors were predictive of AUR. Patients who developed AUR were more likely to have their void trials within 2 days following AdVance Sling placement versus longer initial catheterization periods, suggesting that a longer duration of postoperative catheterization may reduce the occurrence of AUR.

Current Perspectives on Complications of Surgical Treatments for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence

INTRODUCTION

Treatments for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) include behavioral modifications, pelvic floor strengthening exercises, bulking agents, and surgical management. The most common surgical therapies for male stress incontinence include male slings and artificial urinary sphincters. Complications of these treatments are discussed in this review.

AIM

To review the current literature on SUI diagnosis and the management of common complications that occur after surgical treatments of male SUI.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using PubMed and Ovid to identify leading articles on the management of male SUI and the diagnosis and management of operative complications for male incontinence surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Main outcomes measured were complications and management strategies for operative complications after surgical therapies for male SUI.

RESULTS

26 publications were cited after an extensive review of the current literature on surgical treatment of male SUI. Commonly cited issues included infection, erosion, and recurrent incontinence after implantation of male slings and artificial urinary sphincters.

CONCLUSION

Complications are inherent to any surgery; a thorough understanding of complications and treatment strategies after surgery for male SUI is essential for the practicing clinical urologist. Shelton TM, Brimley S, Tsambarlis P, Hellstrom WJG. Current Perspectives on Complications of Surgical Treatments for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:443-449.

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.

Extended follow-up of the AdVance XP male sling in the treatment of male urinary stress incontinence after 48 months: Results of a prospective and multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the AdVance XP male sling in a midterm follow-up for the treatment of male urinary incontinence in a selected patient cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In all, 115 patients with postprostatectomy incontinence were prospectively enrolled. A previous endoscopic evaluation of a sufficient coaptive zone in the repositioning test was mandatory. Patients with urine leakage in supine position or previous incontinence surgery were excluded. Postoperatively a standardized 24-hour pad test and pad usage were evaluated. To compare pre- and postoperative continence status nonparametric t test was used. A P-value of <.05 was seen as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Median preoperative urine loss in the 24-hour pad test was 272 g (min. 42-max. 1600) and was significantly improved at any point in follow-up. Success was defined as 0 pads per day and a maximum of 5 g in the 24-hour pad test. After a follow-up of 48 months, 71.7% of the patients were cured, whereas 15.0% of patients had an improved continence situation and 13.3% were classified as failed. Mean urine loss decreased significantly to 24.4 g (P ≤ .001). No severe intra- or postoperative complications are to be reported. Median follow-up was 4.2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

A stable effectiveness in a selected patient cohort can also be demonstrated in an extended follow-up. The complication rates are low and no late postoperative complications occurred, indicating the safety of the procedure.

Functional follow-up after Advance® and Advance XP® male sling surgery: assessment of predictive factors

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of the Advance^® and AdvanceXP^® slings in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) post-radical prostatectomy and to identify predictive factors for outcome.

METHODS

Included were male patients with SUI following radical prostatectomy who had a positive "repositioning test", 24 h-pad weight (PW) test < 400 g and who were continent at night and at rest. Urgency was defined as a sudden compelling desire to pass urine, which was difficult to defer. The cure rate was defined as no pad use.

RESULTS

From February 2008 to October 2014, 24 AdVance^® and 70 AdVance XP^® were implanted. The median (range) follow-up was 49 (12-102) months. The overall cure rate was 77%. The preoperative 24 h PW was significantly related to the continence outcome (p = 0.044). A total of 12 patients (13%) presented with postoperative AUR, which was significantly related to abnormal voiding detrusor activity (p = 0.036). Twenty-two patients (23%) had postoperative urgency (16% "de novo"), which was significantly related to preoperative urgency (p = 0.003). During follow-up, a degree of deterioration of continence was observed in five patients who were classed as cured initially. To date, no reports of urethral sling erosion have been made.

CONCLUSIONS

The AdVance^® and AdVanceXP^® slings are safe and effective in relieving SUI following post-radical prostatectomy. There were no differences between the two slings in terms of efficacy, urgency or postoperative AUR. There was a moderate rate of "de novo "urgency and low rate of loss of continence during follow-up.

The AdVance and AdVanceXP male sling in urinary incontinence: is there a difference?

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi²-test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups.

RESULTS

Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage.

CONCLUSIONS

The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.

Evaluation of urodynamic parameters after sling surgery in men with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence

Objective:

To evaluate urodynamic alterations after sub-urethral sling surgery (SSU) in patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI).

Materials and Methods:

We evaluated data of 22 patients submitted to radical prosta- tectomy (RP) or transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) that presented post-surgical urinary incontinence and were treated with SSU implant in a pilot study previously performed in our institution.

Methods:

Those patients with PPUI were evaluated by urodynamic exam (UD) before and after surgery, and the parameters were compared, including uroflow, cystometry and micturition study. Exclusion criteria included patients without pre-operatory urodynamic study, those with urethral stenosis, those not healed of prostate cancer, pa- tients without clinical conditions to be submitted to urodynamic study and those with severe neurological diseases or that refused to sign the consent form. Results were analyzed statistically by Fisher, Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney tests.

Results:

During free uroflow, none parameters showed any statistical significant differ- ences. During cystometry, there were also no statistical differences and the same was observed at pressure versus flow study; the exception was at maximal flow detrusor pressure (PdetQmax), that was lower at post-operatory (p=0.028). In relation to the presence of urinary dysfunctions associated to PPUI, we observed a significant reduc- tion of detrusor overactivity (p=0.035) in relation to pre-operatory period.

Conclusion:

SSU surgery significantly reduced detrusor overactivity and PdetQMax; however, there were no alterations of other evaluated urodynamic parameters.

Long-term follow-up of the AdVance®/AdVanceXP® sling. What are the surgeons' impressions? What are the patients'?

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the safety, efficacy and quality of life of patients with male stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy treated with the AdVance^® and AdvanceXP^® slings.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

The study included 92 patients with stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy treated with the AdVance^® and AdVanceXP^® sling between May 2008 and December 2015. A perineal repositioning test was performed in all cases with sphincter coaptation of≥1.5cm. Mild stress urinary incontinence was defined as the use of 1-2 absorbers/24h; moderate was defined as 3-5 absorbers/24h; and severe was defined as more than 5 absorbers/24h. Healing was defined as the total absence of using pads; improvement was defined as a reduction>50% in the number of pads; and failure was defined as a reduction<50, no improvement or worsened incontinence. Check-ups were conducted at 3, 12 and 36 months after the surgery. We employed the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) for the quality of life index. The complications are listed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification.

RESULTS

The degree of preoperative incontinence was mild in 23.9%, moderate in 67.4% and severe in 8.7% of the patients. The mean use of preoperative pads was 3.1 (range 1-6, 95% CI). The mean preoperative ICIQ-SF score was 16.5 (15-20). Sphincter coaptation≥1.5cm using the perineal repositioning test was present in 87 patients (94.6%). The mean follow-up from insertion of the sling was 42.1 months. Some 89.1% of the patients were healed at 3 months, 70.7% were healed at 12 months, and 70.4% were healed at 36 months. The ICIQ-SF score at 3, 12 and 36 months showed significant improvement (P<.001) compared with the preoperative score.

CONCLUSIONS

The Advance^® and AdvanceXP^® system are effective over time in terms of urinary continence and patient satisfaction.

AdVance male sling

The AdVance sling (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, United States of America) is a synthetic transobturator sling, which is a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment for mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in male patients. This article provides a step-by-step description of our technique for placement of the AdVance male sling, including details and nuances gained from surgical experience, advice for avoidance of complications and discussion on management of complications and sling failures. Patient selection is very important, including exclusion and preoperative treatment of urethral stenosis and bladder dysfunction. Previous pelvic radiation is a poor prognostic factor. In brief, the steps of sling placement are: (I) mobilization of the corpus spongiosum (CS); (II) marking and mobilization of the central tendon; (III) passage of the helical trocar needles exiting at the apex of the angle between the CS and inferior pubic ramus; (IV) fixation of the broad part of the sling body to the CS at the previous mark; (V) cystoscopy during sling tensioning; (VI) placement of a Foley urethral catheter; (VII) Subcutaneous tunnelling of the sling arms back toward the midline; (VIII) wound closure. The most common early postoperative complication is urinary retention but long-term retention is extremely rare. Management of sling failures include placement of an artificial urinary sphincter, repeat AdVance sling, urethral bulking agent or ProACT device.

Contemporary surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence: a review of technological advances in current continence surgery

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) remains a debilitating condition that adversely impacts all domains of quality of life and is associated with significant social stigma and health economic burden. The incidence of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) depends on the definition of urinary incontinence and the length of patient follow up. In patients with persistent PPI following failure of conservative measures, surgical treatment is recommended although there is no published guideline on when surgery should be performed, and what the best surgical option is. Male slings (MS) can be divided into adjustable or non-adjustable types, and offers an attractive option for patients who wish to avoid mechanical handling during urinary voiding. Published intermediate data supports good safety and efficacy rate in men with mild to moderate degree of SUI. The AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the standard of treatment for complete continence and has the longest efficacy and safety records. Other AUS-like devices are designed to address current AMS 800 limitations but themselves are fraught with their own issues.

Argus T® versus Advance® Sling for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A randomized clinical trial

Objective

To compare the results of two slings, Argus T® and Advance®, for the treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI). Material and Methods: From December 2010 to December 2011, 22 patients with PPUI were randomized as follows: 11 (mean age 62.09(±5.30)) underwent treatment with Advance® and 11 (mean age 62.55(±8.54)) with Argus T®. All patients were evaluated preoperatively with urodynamic testing, quality of life questionnaire (ICIQ-SF), voiding diary and 24-hour pad test. Exclusion criteria were: neurological diseases, severe detrusor overactivity and urethral stenosis. Evaluation was performed at 6, 12 and 18 months after the surgery. After implantation of the Argus T® sling, patients who experienced urine leakage equal to or greater than the initial volume underwent adjustment of the sling tension. Results were statistically analyzed using the Fisher’s test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Friedman’s non-parametric test or the Mann-Whitney test.

Results

Significant improvement of the 24-hour pad test was observed with the Argus T® sling (p=0.038) , With regard to the other parameters, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Removal of the Argus T® device due to perineal pain was performed in one patient (9%). Despite non uniform results, both devices were considered useful to improve quality of life (ICIQ-SF): Argus T® (p=0.018) and Advance® (p=0.017).

Conclusions

Better results were observed in the 24h pad test and in levels of satisfaction with the Argus T® device. Both slings contributed to improve quality of life (ICIQ-SF), with acceptable side effects.

Single-centre experience in using the adjustable transobturator male system in treatment of stress urinary incontinence in patients after radical prostatectomy

Context:

Urinary incontinence is the most threatening complication after radical prostatectomy. This disorder has an important impact on the quality of life of patients and its treatment is a challenge for urologists as well.

Objective:

The objective of this article is to report our experience with the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS, AMI, Austria) for the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence.

Material and methods:

A total of 35 men with post-prostatectomy incontinence were treated. Before and after device implantation, the number of pads used per day was counted, and a one-hour pad test, uroflowmetry and postmicturition residual volume were assessed. Prior to surgery, anastomosis stricture was either ruled out or treated. To evaluate the success rate, ‘cured’ was defined as no pad use or one safety pad, ‘improved’ was defined as one or two pads or reduction of pad usage by more than 50%, respectively. All data about efficacy and safety were collected from all 35 patients.

Results:

After a median (range) follow-up of 21.2 (3–63) months, the success rate was 32 out of 35 patients (91.5%) with 22 patients (62.9%) ‘cured’ and 10 patients (28.6%) ‘improved’. Recovery of continence was achieved in seven patients (20.0%). The remaining patients (80%) needed an adjustment. The mean (range) number of adjustments to reach desired results (continence, improvement or patient satisfaction) was 4.3 (1–15). The most common adverse event was transient perineal pain, which was reported in 14 (40%) patients and disappeared within two weeks. Temporary urine retention appeared in one patient (2.9%). There were three cases (8.6%) of wound infection at the site of a port leading to explantation of the port in two patients (5.7%) and the removal of the system in one patient (2.9%).

Conclusion:

Treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence with the self-anchoring ATOMS is safe and effective.

Five-year experience with the adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: a single-center evaluation

BACKGROUND

We report on our 5-year experience with the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS^®, A.M.I., Feldkirch, Austria).

METHODS

Between 10-2009 and 10-2014, 54 patients received an ATOMS. The mean follow-up of this retrospective observational trial was 27.5 ± 18.4 (2.3-59) months. Within each follow-up, the following were evaluated: micturition protocol, 24-h pad count, uroflowmetry and residual volume. Statistical analysis was performed with SigmaPlot^® 11.0, p < 0.05 considered as significant.

RESULTS

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) I°, II° and III° was seen in 1 (1.9 %), 16 (29.6 %) and 37 patients (68.5 %), respectively. In summary, 48.1 % of the patients became "dry" (0-"safty pad"/day), while 29.6 % achieved at least an "improvement" of about more than 50 % (1-2 pads/day), which corresponds to an overall success rate of 77.7 %. The mean number of pads/day decreased from 7.7 to 1.6. Regarding the initial degree of SUI, patients with mild or moderate incontinence had a significantly better outcome (p = 0.002, 95 % CI 0.9066 to 2.760). Postoperative complications were scaled according to the Clavien classification, in which we have seen 4 grade I-, 1 grade IIIa- and 9 grade IIIb-complications (overall 25.9 %). The evaluation of quality of life by ICIQ-SF showed a significant improvement (p = 0.0001, 95 % CI -14.56 to -11.75).

CONCLUSION

The treatment of male SUI using the ATOMS incontinence system achieved the best results in patients with mild and moderate incontinence. For severe incontinent patients, the system represents an efficient alternative.

Long-term Follow-up of the Virtue Quadratic Male Sling

OBJECTIVE

To report our long-term outcomes of Virtue Quadratic (VQ) sling since male slings have been introduced as a potential alternative treatment option to the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), with limited long-term data available for proof of efficacy. Herein, we report our data.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on all Virtue slings performed at our institution over a 2-year period. Patient-reported outcomes regarding procedure success, complications, as well as subsequent procedures were identified. Procedure failure was defined as the inability to reduce patient's preoperative pad use, sling explant for complications, and need for AUS due to continued incontinence.

RESULTS

We identified 32 consecutive male patients who were implanted with the VQ sling over the study period. One patient was excluded due to no follow-up. Median follow-up was 55 months. Median preoperative and postoperative pads per day were 3 (interquartile range: 1-3) and 2 (1-2.5). There were 21 (68%) patients who were considered procedure failures. Two (7%) patients reported chronic pain following placement and 7 (22%) underwent subsequent sling explant due to pain or for failure (1 vs 6). Six (20%) patients underwent subsequent AUS placement. Failure was more likely in patients with external beam radiation therapy (6, 19%) (P = .02). There was no association between procedure failure with age (P = .65) or severity of incontinence (P = .17).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated a significant procedure failure and complication rate with the VQ sling. Thus, we do not recommend the use of the VQ sling and have abandoned all further implantation of the device.

[Urinary incontinence in men]

Stress urinary incontinence in men is predominantly iatrogenic whereby radical prostatectomy is the most common cause with persistent stress urinary incontinence rates varying between 10 % and 25 %. The first line therapy for postoperative male stress urinary incontinence is physiotherapy, especially pelvic floor muscle rehabilitation. If conservative treatment fails to show sufficient improvement, surgical therapy is recommended. Several treatment options are currently available for the surgical treatment of male stress urinary incontinence including artificial sphincters, adjustable and functional sling systems, bulking agents and implantable balloon systems.

Hypothesis That Urethral Bulb (Corpus Spongiosum) Plays an Active Role in Male Urinary Continence

The proximal urethral bulb in men is enlarged, surrounds the bulbous urethra, and extends dorsally towards the perineum. During intercourse engorgement takes place due to increased blood flow through the corpus spongiosum. Antegrade ejaculation is facilitated by contraction of the bulbospongiosus muscles during climax. Micturition during sexual stimulation is functionally inhibited. Supporting the bulb may indirectly facilitate continence in a certain subset of patients with postprostatectomy incontinence. During physical activity with increased abdominal pressure, reflex contraction of the pelvic floor muscles as well as the bulbospongiosus muscles occurs to support sphincter function and limit urinary incontinence. Operations to the prostate may weaken urinary sphincter function. It is hypothesized that the distal urinary sphincter may be supported indirectly by placing a hammock underneath the urethral bulb. During moments of physical stress the "cushion" of blood within the supported corpus spongiosum helps to increase the zone of coaptation within the sphincteric (membranous) urethra. This may lead to urinary continence in patients treated by a transobturator repositioning sling in patients with postprostatectomy incontinence. This paper describes the possible role of the urethral bulb in male urinary continence, including its function after retroluminal sling placement (AdVance, AdVance XP® Male Sling System, Minnetonka, USA).

The artificial urinary sphincter and male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: Which patient should get which procedure?

Surgery is the most efficacious treatment for postprostatectomy incontinence. The ideal surgical approach depends on a variety of patient factors including history of prior incontinence surgery or radiation treatment, bladder contractility, severity of leakage, and patient expectations. Most patients choose to avoid a mechanical device, opting for the male sling over the artificial urinary sphincter. The modern male sling has continued to evolve with respect to device design and surgical technique. Various types of slings address sphincteric incompetence via different mechanisms of action. The recommended surgery, however, must be individualized to the patient based on degree of incontinence, detrusor contractility, and urethral compliance. A thorough urodynamic evaluation is indicated for the majority of patients, and the recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter, a transobturator sling, or a quadratic sling will depend on urodynamic findings and the patient's particular preference. As advancements in this field evolve, and our understanding of the pathophysiology of incontinence and mechanisms of various devices improves, we expect to see continued evolution in device design.

AdVanceXP male sling: 2-year results of a multicentre study

PURPOSE

For the treatment of persistent post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), several surgical treatment options including male slings are available. In 2010, the second generation of the retrourethral male sling Advance, AdVanceXP, was introduced. Aim of the study was to examine in a prospective multicentre study the outcome of AdVanceXP in the treatment of PPI.

METHODS

Ninety-four patients were treated with AdVanceXP. Patients with nocturnal incontinence, previous incontinence surgery, with coaptive zone <1 cm and irradiated patients were excluded. Measurements included: daily pad usage, 24-h pad weight test, post-operative pain in the visual analogue scale, International Quality of Life questionnaire, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire short form, IEEF5 and Patient Global Impression of Improvement. Adverse events were recorded. All patients with no pads and 0-5 g in the 24-h pad test were defined as cured and those with a reduction in urine loss >50 % as improved.

RESULTS

Preoperatively, the median 24-h pad weight test was 274 g and daily pad usage was 3. At 1-year follow-up, 66.3 % of patients could be classified as cured and 25.3 % as improved. After 2 years, 73.1 % could be classified as cured and 19.6 % as improved. Urine loss decreased (p < 0.001), and quality of life improved significantly (p < 0.001). Mean PGI was 1.5 after 1 year and 1.4 after 2 years. Majority of complications were minor. No intraoperative complications and five serious post-operative events occurred (grade IIIB complications). No explantation was necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

AdVanceXP, when correctly indicated, shows good effectiveness and low complication rates after up to 2 years.

[Diagnosis and surgical treatment of postprostatectomy stress incontinence: recommendation of the working group Urologische Funktionsdiagnostik und Urologie der Frau]

Today, for the surgical treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence, several treatment options are available, e.g., adjustable and functional sling systems, artificial sphincter, bulking agents, and balloons. However, no recommendations in terms of specific diagnostic tools and differentiated treatment options for everyday life are available. Our aim is to provide some clinically relevant recommendations for the necessary diagnostic workup and different treatment options of postprostatetectomy incontinence to support clinical decisions in everyday life. Treatment selection should be based on contraindications. However, there is a broad overlap of the various surgical options.

Surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence: which procedure for which patient?

Surgery remains the most effective treatment for postprostatectomy incontinence. Over the past two decades, this surgery has evolved with respect to both operative technique and sling design, and various devices are now available that have different mechanisms of action, such as the artificial urinary sphincter, retroluminal sling or quadratic sling. The choice of device, however, should be individualized according to the circumstances of each patient. The optimal surgical treatment depends on a variety of patient-related factors, including the degree of urine leakage as assessed by incontinence pad weight test results, bladder contractility, urethral compliance, history of radiation exposure or prior incontinence surgery, and patient preference--given the choice, most patients opt for a sling procedure over an artificial sphincter to avoid implantation of a mechanical device. Athorough urodynamic evaluation is, therefore, necessary for the majority of patients. An artificial urinary sphincter, retroluminal sling or quadratic sling might be the most appropriate choice for a particular patient, depending on their specific urodynamic findings. Progress in this field continues, and several new devices are in development.

Management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy

In the year following a radical prostatectomy, most men recover from any initial urinary incontinence. Nonetheless, incontinence greatly affects a man's quality of life during that time, as it does for those who have persistent incontinence thereafter. Urological assessment should be thorough in order to ensure that no treatable etiology exists aside from stress incontinence. Conservative measures can then be applied from the earliest stages, and offer benefit for those with mild to moderate symptoms. Failing this, a wide variety of surgical options can be considered. For effective outcomes, a clinician must ensure that surgical decision-making is based on current evidence and patient preference, and that it considers possible morbidities.

[Urogynecology II: urinary incontinence in men and women: surgical treatment of urinary incontinence and prolapse]

Numerous surgical procedures are available for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women and men. On a par with classical therapy options (e.g. colposuspension and artificial sphincter prosthesis) suburethral tape procedures have become established as the minimally invasive standard of care. Regarding comorbidities and recurrent urinary incontinence, therapeutic procedures should be modified on an individual basis. It is crucial to involve patients in therapeutic decision-making and counseling should be given with respect to all conservative and operative alternatives.

Stemming the tide of mild to moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence: A retrospective comparison of transobturator male slings and the artificial urinary sphincter

INTRODUCTION

The AUS remains the gold standard treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), although most patients with mild-moderate PPI prefer a sling without strong evidence of procedural equivalence. This study compares outcomes of 2 procedures for the treatment of mild-moderate PPI.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 124 patients (76 transobturator sling, 48 AUS) with mild-moderate PPI requiring intervention over an 8-year period. The primary outcome was continence. Secondary outcomes included global patient satisfaction, improvement, and complication rates. Mild to moderate incontinence was defined as requiring ≤5 pads/day.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age (66.2 vs. 68.1 years; p = 0.17) or prostate cancer characteristics for slings and AUS, respectively. AUS patients had higher Charlson comorbidity scores and were more likely to have previous radiotherapy. Median length of follow up was 24 months for slings and 42 months for AUS. There was no difference in continence rates, 88.2% vs. 87.5% (p = 0.79), rate of improvement, 94.7% vs. 95.8% (p = 1.00), or patient satisfaction, 93.4% vs. 91.7% (p = 0.73), for slings and AUS, respectively. Complication rates were equivalent (19.7% vs. 16.7%; p = 1.00), though a significantly higher proportion of complications with AUS were Clavien Grade 3 (0% vs. 75%; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

For mild to moderate PPI there is no difference in continence, satisfaction, or improvement rates, between AUS and slings. AUS complications tend to be more severe. Our study supports the use of slings as first-line treatment for mild-moderate PPI.

Following the needles: an anatomical study to evaluate the postoperative safety and symptoms of patients receiving a transobturator male sling implant

PURPOSE

Implanting a transobturator male sling is a valid option to manage urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. We evaluated the trajectory of Argus T™ needles blindly introduced into the retropubic space to determine the safety and etiology of postoperative symptoms that can arise from this implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Needles were implanted and perineal dissection was performed in 20 fixed, adult human male cadavers. The distance was measured from the upper and lower extremities of the needles in the internal pelvic wall up to the obturator neurovascular bundle. Anatomical variations identified in this area proximal to the needles were characterized. The inguinocrural region was also dissected from the needles positioned there. Statistical analysis of the results was done.

RESULTS

All needles transfixed the obturator internus muscle. Of the needles 90% were completely immersed in its fibers and not visible in the inner wall of the pelvis. The distance to the obturator neurovascular bundle and anatomical variations were noted. In the inguinocrural region the pectineus and adductor longus muscles were perforated in all cadavers.

CONCLUSIONS

The needle sling implant preserves the obturator neurovascular bundle and obviates the potential for postoperative pelvic hematoma. The anatomical trajectory of the needles used for this implant account for the groin and perineal pain side effects. Based on similarities between the Argus T and other types of outside-in transobturator male slings the results of the current study could be extrapolated to the latter slings.

AdVance and AdVance XP slings for the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence

PURPOSE

To examine the outcomes with the AdVance XP and AdVance slings in the management of post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI).

METHODS

Eighty patients were treated with the AdVance resp. AdVance XP at one tertiary reference centre. The initial patients were implanted with the AdVance male sling with no associated surgery. Following the introduction of the AdVance XP sling, subsequent patients were implanted with the AdVance XP slings. Measurements included: daily pad usage, 24-h pad weight test, International Quality of Life Questionnaire, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Follow-up was available for 39 and 41 patients treated with the AdVance and AdVance XP slings, respectively. At a median follow-up of 24.7 months, 69.3 % of patients could be classified as cured or improved in the AdVance group and at a median follow-up of 11.9 months, 90.3 % of AdVance XP-treated patients. At 3-month follow-up, 96.8 and 97.3 % of patients could be classed as cured or improved in the AdVance and AdVance XP groups, respectively (not significant). There were no perioperative complications. Two AdVance and three AdVance XP serious post-operative complications were reported, which were resolved following treatment. QOL was improved in both treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the AdVance and the AdVance XP slings are effective and safe for the treatment of PPI.

[Modern operative treatment possibilities in male stress urinary incontinence]

Postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is one of the most feared complications of radical prostatectomy with major impact on quality of life and social well-being. In recent years due to improved surgical techniques a reduction of the postoperative incontinence rate was achieved. However, due to the increasing number of radical prostatectomies performed for prostate cancer, a substantial and increasing number of patients are suffering from postoperative stress urinary incontinence. If conservative treatment fails, surgical therapy is recommended. For decades, the artificial urinary sphincter was the reference standard for moderate to severe postoperative male stress urinary incontinence. However, patients' demand on minimally invasive treatment options is high. Age or advanced prostate cancer should not be an exclusion criterion for surgical treatment of persistent PPI.

Male incontinence and the transobturator approach: An analysis of current outcomes

Objectives

To provide an analysis of the outcomes in patients who have a suburethral sling placed using the transobturator approach for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy, because data in this specific area remain limited, and recent changes in male sling surgery might improve the efficacy in men with moderate or mild incontinence.

Methods

We evaluated the results of transobturator non-adjustable and re-adjustable sling systems after reviewing previous reports identified using the Medline and PubMed databases for original articles, from 2002 to 2012, using the terms ‘postoperative male incontinence’, ‘transobturator’ and ‘male sling’. Of a total of 31 articles, we reviewed the 22 related to the outcomes of the suburethral sling with positioning by the transobturator approach.

Results

Currently the only results of the transobturator approach are those relating to the AdVance™ device (American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA), for which the cure rate is ≈ 60% at 20 months. The remaining devices, although innovative, were assessed in studies for which the follow-up was too short to make a judgement.

Conclusions

It would be advisable to reserve the transobturator approach for patients with mild and moderate incontinence, and refer those with severe incontinence, with or without adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy, for treatment with an artificial urinary sphincter. More results and a long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these devices.

Impact of the 'repositioning test' on postoperative outcome of retroluminar transobturator male sling implantation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prospectively the value of the 'repositioning test' (RT) in preoperative patient selection for the efficacy of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) treatment using a retroluminar transobturator male sling (AdVance sling).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

65 consecutive patients with SUI after radical prostatectomy were included in this single-center prospective study. Preoperatively, patients were classified into those with 'positive' and 'negative' RT. Postoperative results were analyzed and the association between the result of the RT and postoperative outcome was evaluated.

RESULTS

53 patients (81.5%) showed preoperatively a positive RT and 12 patients (18.5%) a negative RT. After a follow-up of 12 months, patients with positive RT showed a cure rate (0 pads/day) of 83% and patients with a negative RT showed only a cure rate of 25%. A positive RT significantly correlated with cure in outcome (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with positive RT have a significantly better chance for successful AdVance sling implantation. The RT is minimally invasive, easy to learn and easy to perform. Therefore, the RT is a very useful tool for preoperative patient selection.

AdVance/AdVance XP transobturator male slings: preoperative degree of incontinence as predictor of surgical outcome

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of the AdVance transobturator male sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence and to identify the preoperative predictors of a successful outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients were considered for sling placement 1 year after radical prostatectomy or transurethral resection of the prostate. The degree of incontinence was assessed using the 24-hour pad weight test. A preoperative urodynamic assessment and cystoscopy were performed in all cases. Patients without sphincter contractions during the "repositioning test" were excluded. Since September 2010, we have implanted the AdVance XP transobturator sling. Cure was defined as no pad use.

RESULTS

From February 2008 to June 2011, 61 patients underwent transobturator sling (34 AdVance and 27 AdVance XP) insertion. In 26 cases, the sling was anchored with bioabsorbable sutures, and in 35 cases, it was not fixed. Of the 61 patients, 7 had a history of anastomotic stricture and 3 of radiotherapy. Preoperatively, median 24-hour pad weight was 200 g (range 25-1848). Finally, 26 patients had detrusor overactivity or low bladder compliance. The median follow-up was 26 months (range 12-53). The overall cure rate was 80% (49 of 61). Deterioration of continence was observed during follow-up in 2 patients. The preoperative variables (age, body mass index, 24-hour pad weight, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form, adverse urodynamics, sling fixation, AdVance XP) and their association with the surgical outcome were analyzed. The preoperative 24-hour pad weight correlated inversely with the outcome (odds ratio 0.996), with a 0.4% decrease in cure rate for each 1-g increase in the preoperative 24-hour pad weight. The complications included perineal hematoma in 2, acute urinary retention in 9, perineal numbness in 5, and de novo storage symptoms (urgency) in 5 patients.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study have shown that the AdVance and AdVance XP male slings are safe and efficient in patients with mild postprostatectomy stress incontinence. The severity of incontinence was the only predictor of a successful outcome.

[Salvage therapy with artificial urinary sphincter after Advance™ male sling failure for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a first clinical experience]

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical outcome following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation after failure of Advance™ sub-urethral male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI).

METHODS

A prospective evaluation was conducted about consecutive patients who received an AUS after failure of Advance™ therapy in one tertiary reference center. Evaluation included medical history, pad use and operative data (duration, cuff size, technical difficulties). Follow-up was scheduled at 1, 6, 12 months and yearly thereafter. Clinical outcome was evaluated by pad use, patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) scale and assessment of side effects. Cure was defined as no pad usage.

RESULTS

Twelve patients were included in this evaluation. Median follow-up was 20 months (12-43). No patient was lost to follow-up. Four patients had a history of radiation therapy and all patients had mild or moderate PPI with previous failed Advance™ surgery. Median (range) operative time was 47 minutes (40-60). No technical problem occurred during AUS implantation. Hospital stay duration and catheterization duration were respectively 2 days and 24 hours in all but one case. At last follow-up, 10/12 patients (83%) were cured and fully satisfied. Two were improved, wearing only one pad per day. Postoperative complications were noted in two cases (17%) (one case of cutaneous erosion and one case of superficial iliac wound infection).

CONCLUSIONS

AUS implantation is feasible in patients who have undergone Advance™ male sling implantation. Mid-term results of this procedure are comparable to those obtained after first line AUS implantation.

[Therapy of male urinary incontinence: artificial sphincter versus male slings]

Different kinds of sling systems for the therapy of male urinary incontinence have been developed during the last decade. All systems work by compressing the male urethra. There are adjustable and non-adjustable systems. Implantation is mostly a minimally invasive procedure. On the other hand the well-established AMS 800 hydraulic artificial sphincter has been available since 1972. Recently, another hydraulic artificial sphincter (FlowSecure) has become available providing a boost of occlusive pressure during stress. The aim of this review is to compare effectiveness and indications of the different techniques compared to the artificial sphincter.

Current trends in the management of post-prostatectomy incontinence

One of the annoying complications of radical prostatectomy is urinary incontinence. Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) causes a significant impact on the patient's health-related quality of life. Although PPI is stress urinary incontinence caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency in most cases, bladder dysfunction and vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis can induce urine leakage also. Exact clinical assessments, such as a voiding diary, incontinence questionnaire, pad test, urodynamic study, and urethrocystoscopy, are necessary to determine adequate treatment. The initial management of PPI is conservative treatment including lifestyle interventions, pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, and bladder training. An early start of conservative treatment is recommended during the first year. If the conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment is recommended. Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy can be divided into minimally invasive and invasive treatments. Minimally invasive treatment includes injection of urethral bulking agents, male suburethral sling, and adjustable continence balloons. Invasive treatment includes artificial urinary sphincter implantation, which is still the gold standard and the most effective treatment of PPI. However, the demand for minimally invasive treatment is increasing, and many urologists consider male suburethral slings to be an acceptable treatment for PPI. The male sling is usually recommended for patients with persistent mild or moderate incontinence. It is necessary to improve our understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms of PPI and to compare different procedures for the development of new and potentially better treatment options.