International Variation in Artificial Urinary Sphincter Use

Infection rates following urologic prosthetic revision without replacement of any device components compared to partial or complete device exchange: a single-center retrospective cohort study

Urologic implant revision carries a higher infection risk than virgin implantation. Historically, exchanging device components at the time of revision was performed to reduce infection risk. We hypothesize that revision without replacement of any parts of the device may not be associated with increased infection risk. A single-center, retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing urologic implant revision from 2000 to 2021. Revisions involving exchange of any/all device components (+CE) were compared to revisions without exchange of any components (-CE). The primary outcome was infection or erosion within 12 weeks of revision. Infection rates were compared using Fischer exact test. Infection-free survival (IFS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier (KM) log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. 551 revisions were included, including 497 revisions with CE and 54 without CE. Among those with at least 12 weeks follow-up, no difference was seen in infection rates within 12 weeks of revision [-CE 3/39 (7.7%) vs. +CE 10/383 (2.6%)], p = 0.109). In addition, IFS was comparable between groups (log-rank test p = 0.22, HR for -CE 1.65 (0.65-4.21). Revision surgery for IPP or AUS without CE may not present an elevated risk of infection in the properly selected patient.

Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in non-neurogenic men: a place for out-patient surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess feasibility, safety and risk factors for failure associated with out-patient surgery for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation/revision in non-neurogenic men.

MATERIALS

In the present retrospective monocentric study conducted between May 2016 and March 2020, 81 patients undergoing AUS implantation or revision during an out-patient surgery were included. The primary outcome was the success rate of out-patient surgery. Success was assessed using two distinct definitions, a narrow definition, where success was defined as a one-day hospitalization and the absence of any unscheduled consultation or re-hospitalization within the 3 days following surgery, a broad definition, where success was defined as a one-day hospitalization and the absence of any unscheduled re-hospitalization within the 3 days following surgery. In parallel, risk factors for failure of out-patient surgery, as well as efficacy and safety were assessed.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 71.2 years ± 5.9. Out-patient surgery was successfully completed in 58 men (71.6% [95% CI 60.5-81.1]) and in 76 men (93.8% [95% CI 86.2-97.9]) according to the narrow and the broad definition, respectively. After multivariate analysis, anticoagulant therapy (OR 25.97 [95% CI 4.44-152.04]) and low socio-professional status (OR 22.1 [95% CI 3.701-131.95]) were statistically associated with failure of out-patient surgery. The continence rate after a 90-day follow-up was 79%.

CONCLUSION

AUS implantation/revision in non-neurogenic men could be safely proposed in out-patient surgery. Special attention may however be paid to patients undergoing anticoagulant therapy or belonging to a low socio-professional category.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DEC20-173 (French National Commission for Data Protection and Liberties).

Robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter implantation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the present manuscript was to provide an overview on the current state of robotic artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in male and female patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past few years, several series have been reported, with promising outcomes for the most part. This has contributed to expand the use of bladder neck AUS, especially in female patients, which was, until then, hampered by its perioperative morbidity.

SUMMARY

Robotic AUS has been developed to overcome the technical challenge of bladder neck implantation in female patients and in specific male subgroups, especially self-catheterizing neurological patients. All the series of robotic AUS implantation published in the past few years reported much lower rates of cuff erosion and AUS explantation than the historical open cohorts suggesting that the robotic approach might become the standard for female AUS implantation. This less morbid approach along with technological improvement of the AUS device may contribute to make it a more popular option in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency. There are much less data available on robotic bladder neck AUS implantation in male patients.

Current Use of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Adult Females

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The aim of the present report was to review the recent evidences regarding the use of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in adult females.

RECENT FINDINGS

While the excellent functional outcomes of AUS in female patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) have been reported for decades, its use has remained confidential in most countries likely due to its challenging implantation and inherent morbidity. Over the past few years, laparoscopic and, more recently, robotic techniques of AUS implantation in female patients have been described with promising perioperative outcomes. As a result, the use of AUS has increased in several countries. The indications are mostly recurrent or persistent SUI after previous anti-incontinence procedures and neurogenic SUI. Owing to its unique potential to restore continence while maintaining low outlet resistance during the voiding phase, AUS may be of special interest in female patients with detrusor underactivity. High level of evidence data from trials which are underway, along with developments in robotic surgery and technological refinements of the device, may well, almost 50 years after its introduction, give to the AUS its momentum as a major contributor in the female SUI armamentarium. While the use of AUS in female patients has been restricted to some countries and a few high-volume centers, it has started spreading again over the past few years, thanks to the rise of minimally invasive approaches which facilitate its implantation, and this is yielding promising outcomes.

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.

The current state and the future of robotic surgery in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery

In this article, we review the current uses and future directions of robotic surgery in the field of female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Pelvic surgery is ideal for the use of surgical robots, which provide improved visualization and ease of suturing deep within the pelvis. Robots have been successfully used for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse, in procedures such as sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, and uterosacral ligament plication. Surgeons have used the robotic successfully to treat various etiologies of female pelvic pain including fibroids, endometriosis, and nerve entrapment. Robotic repair of iatrogenic injury has been described with excellent outcomes and avoidance of conversion to open surgery in the event of an injury caused using the robotic platform. While more data is needed on this topic, there has been increasing interest in using the robot for urologic reconstruction including repair of vesico-vaginal fistula, cystectomy, augmentation cystoplasty, and continent and non-continent diversions. Recently the use of the robot has been described in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in females, with robotic placement of an artificial urinary sphincter. While robotic surgery is associated with increased cost, the outcomes of robotic surgery in female urology are promising. More studies that properly evaluate the benefits of robotic surgery as compared to open and laparoscopic approaches are needed.

Robot-assisted AMS-800 Artificial Urinary Sphincter Bladder Neck Implantation in Female Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence

BACKGROUND

Widespread adoption of the AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in female patients has been hampered by the surgical morbidity of its implantation through an open approach.

OBJECTIVE

To describe a standardized technique of robotic bladder neck AUS implantation in female patients, and to report the perioperative and functional outcomes obtained by multiple surgeons with this technique.

DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS

We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all female patients who underwent robotic AUS implantation for urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency between March 2012 and March 2017 in five institutions. Most of the 10 surgeons involved were not highly experienced in female AUS implantation and/or in robotic surgery.

SURGICAL PROCEDURE

The AUS is implanted at the bladder neck through a transperitoneal robotic approach. The finger placed by the assistant surgeon in the vagina is paramount to expose the vesicovaginal space and guide the robotic surgeon throughout the bladder neck dissection.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was the incontinence categorized as complete continence(ie, no pads used), improved incontinence, or unchanged incontinence.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Forty-nine female patients underwent a robotic AUS implantation. There were eight intraoperative complications (16.3%): five bladder neck injuries and three vaginal injuries. Nine patients experienced postoperative complications (18.3%), but only two were Clavien ≥3 (4.1%). After a median follow-up of 18.5 mo, one explantation (vaginal erosion, 2.1%) and three revisions (one mechanical and two nonmechanical failure, 6.1%) were needed. At last follow-up, 40 patients were fully continent (81.6%), six had improved incontinence (12.2%), and three had unchanged incontinence (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this first multicenter series of robot-assisted AUS implantation, our technique appeared feasible, safe, and reproducible with perioperative and functional outcomes in the early learning curve not inferior to those reported in large series of open AUS implantation from tertiary referral centers.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Robot-assisted bladder neck AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter implantation in female patients with stress urinary incontinence resulting from intrinsic sphincter deficiency is feasible, safe, and reproducible with promising outcomes.

Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence: preliminary comparison of robot-assisted and open approaches

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in female patients.

METHODS

The charts of all female patients who underwent an AUS implantation between 2008 and 2014 in a single center were retrospectively reviewed. From 2008 to 2012, AUS were implanted using an open approach and from 2013 to 2014 using a robot-assisted approach. Perioperative and functional parameters were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was continence status.

RESULTS

Twenty-four women were assessed: 16 in the open group and eight in the robot-assisted group. Three patients had neurogenic stress urinary incontinence. Most patients had undergone previous procedures for urinary incontinence (15 in the open group and seven in the robotic group). Mean operative time was similar in both groups (214 vs. 211 min; p = 0.90). Postoperative complicationsrate was lower in the robot-assisted group (25 vs. 75 %; p = 0.02). There was a trend toward a lower intraoperative complication rate (37.5 vs. 62.5 %; p = 0.25), decreased blood loss (17 ml vs. 275 ml; p = 0.22), and shorter length of stay (3.5 vs. 9.3 days; p = 0.09) in the robot-assisted group. Continence rates were comparable in both groups (75 vs. 68.8 %; p = 0.75). Three AUS explantations were needed in the open group (18.8 %) compared with one in the robot-assisted group (12.5 %; p = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

In female patients, the robot-assisted approach compared with open AUS implantation could decrease intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay, and blood loss.

Practice patterns of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence surgery in Ontario

INTRODUCTION

We assess the practice patterns of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and urethral sling insertion after radical prostatectomy (RP) from a large population-based cohort.

METHODS

We examined 25 346 men in Ontario, Canada who underwent RP between 1993 and 2006. Using hospital and cancer registry data, we identified patients who subsequently underwent an incontinence procedure. We characterized the practice patterns of post-prostatectomy incontinence procedures across Ontario during the study interval.

RESULTS

A total of 703 (2.8%) men underwent subsequent insertion of an AUS and 282 (1.1%) underwent a urethral sling procedure (985 total incontinence procedures, 3.9%) over the study period. During the study period, 121 hospitals performed RP. Among them, 32 (26%) hospitals performed both RP and AUS/sling procedures, and 89 (74%) performed RP only. Four hospitals performed AUS/sling procedures but not RP. Of the 36 institutions that performed AUS/sling procedures, the median annual case volume was 0.29 (interquartile range: 0.083-0.75). Of all incontinence procedures, 56% were performed at 3 academic institutions. When examining observed rates of AUS/sling procedures compared with expected rates from the overall cohort, 15 of 32 hospitals (47%) performed significantly fewer incontinence procedures than expected given their RP case volume (p range: <0.0001-0.0390) and 5 (16%) performed significantly more (p range: <0.0001-0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

A small number of academic institutions provide most of the surgical care for men with incontinence following RP in Ontario. Many centres that perform RP refer out to other centres to surgically manage their patients' incontinence.