Foley or Fix: A Comparative Analysis of Reparative Procedures at the Time of Explantation of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Cuff Erosion

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.

Natural History of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosion: Long-term Lower Urinary Tract Outcomes and Incontinence Management

OBJECTIVE

To describe long-term lower urinary tract outcomes and incontinence management after AUS erosion, including risk factors associated with each outcome.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed our prospectively maintained AUS database for men undergoing device explantation for urethral erosion from January 1, 1986 to October 10, 2023. Outcomes included development of urethral stricture and management of post-explant incontinence (eg, pads/clamp, catheter, salvage AUS, supravesical diversion). Risk factors were tested for association with stricture formation and repeat AUS erosion using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Around 1943 unique patients underwent AUS implantation during the study period, and 217 (11%) had a device explantation for urethral erosion. Of these, 194 had complete records available and were included for analysis. Median follow-up from implantation was 7.5 years (IQR 2.7-13.7) and median time to erosion was 2 yrs (IQR 0-6). Ninety-six patients (49%) underwent salvage AUS placement. Of those, 38/96 (40%) were explanted for subsequent erosion. On multivariable analysis, no factors were significantly associated with risk of salvage AUS erosion. On multivariable model, pelvic radiation (OR 2.7; 95% CI 1.0-7.4) and urethral reapproximation during explant for erosion (OR 4.2; 95% CI 1.5-11.2) were significantly associated with increased risk of urethral stricture (P <.05). At the time of last follow-up, 69/194 (36%) patients had a functioning salvage AUS, including both initial and subsequent salvage implants.

CONCLUSION

Following AUS erosion, radiation history and urethral reapproximation at explantation were risk factors for development of urethral stricture. Salvage AUS replacement can be performed, but has a higher rate of repeat urethral erosion.

Urethral Stricture Formation Following Cuff Erosion of AMS Artificial Urinary Sphincter Devices: Implication for a Less Invasive Explantation Approach

Objectives

The objective of this study is to describe a standardized less invasive approach in patients with artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) explantation due to cuff erosion and analyze success and urethral stricture rates out of a prospective database. Evidence regarding complication management is sparse with heterogenous results revealing high risk of urethral stricture formation despite simultaneous urethroplasty in case of AUS explantation.

Patients and Methods

Data of all patients undergoing AUS implantation due to stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in our tertiary center were prospectively collected from 2009 to 2015. In case of cuff erosion, AUS explantation was carried out in an institutional standardized strategy without urethroplasty, urethral preparation or mobilization nor urethrorrhaphy. Transurethral and suprapubic catheters were inserted for 3 weeks followed by radiography of the urethra. Further follow-up (FU) consisted of pad test, uroflowmetry, postvoiding residual urine (PVR), and radiography. Primary endpoint was urethral stricture rate.

Results

Out of 235 patients after AUS implantation, 24 (10.2%) experienced cuff erosion with consecutive explantation and were available for analysis. Within a median FU of 18.7 months after AUS explantation, 2 patients (8.3%) developed a urethral stricture. The remaining 22 patients showed a median Qmax of 17 ml/s without suspicion of urethral stricture. Median time to reimplantation was 4 months (IQR 3-4).

Conclusion

We observed a considerably low stricture formation and could not prove an indication for primary urethroplasty nor delay in salvage SUI treatment possibilities. Therefore, the presented standardized less invasive explantation strategy with consequent urinary diversion seems to be safe and effective and might be recommended in case of AUS cuff erosion.

Long-term lower urinary tract sequelae following AUS cuff erosion

AIMS

To examine the rate of lower urinary tract complications (LUTC) and urinary diversion (UD) after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) explantation with the acute reconstruction of AUS cuff erosion defects.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent in-situ urethroplasty (ISU) for AUS cuff erosion from June 2007 to December 2020. Outcomes included LUTC (urethral stricture, diverticulum, fistula), AUS reimplantation, and UD. Defect size was prospectively estimated acutely and a subanalysis was performed to determine the impact of erosion severity (small erosions [<33% circumferential defect] and large erosions [≥33%]) on these outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves were created to compare survival between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients underwent ISU for urethral cuff erosion. The median patient age was 76 years old with a median erosion circumference of 46%. The overall LUTC rate was 30% (12/40) with 35% (14/40) of patients requiring permanent UD. Secondary AUS placement occurred in 24/40 (60%) patients with 11/24 (46%) leading to repeat erosion. On subanalysis, small erosion was associated with improved LUTC-free and UD-free survival but not associated with AUS reimplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower urinary tract complications are common after AUS cuff erosion and can lead to the need for permanent UD. Patients with larger erosions are more likely to undergo UD and reach this end-stage condition earlier compared to patients with small erosions.

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.

Synchronous Urethral Repair During Prosthetic Surgery: Safety of Planned and Damage Control Approaches Using Suprapubic Tube Urinary Diversion

BACKGROUND

Urethral injury during inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) or artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement is rare, and traditionally most prosthetic surgeons abort prosthetic implantation when urethral repair is necessary.

AIM

To report our experience with synchronous urethroplasty (SU) as a planned or damage control surgery during urologic prosthetic surgery, to evaluate the safety and outcomes of the procedure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of our IPP and AUS database was completed to identify patients who underwent an SU between 2007 and 2018. We included patients who underwent an SU during prosthetic surgery in either a planned procedure for known stricture or diverticulum or a "damage control" procedure after intraoperative injury.

OUTCOME

Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were assessed, with success defined as the absence of urethral stricture and revision surgery.

RESULTS

From our database of 1,508 prosthetic cases, we identified 7 patients (0.46%) who had an SU in the same setting as complete prosthesis placement (4 AUS and 3 IPP [1 combined IPP/AUS], and 1 sling). Three patients underwent planned repair of a known urethral abnormality (urethral diverticulum, urethrocutaneous fistula, and urethral stricture), and 4 underwent repair of an intraoperative urethral injury. Among the patients who experienced an intraoperative urethral injury, contributing etiologies included previous anti-incontinence surgery with periurethral fibrosis (n = 2), severe corporal fibrosis from priapism, and previous urethral disruption from pelvic fracture. Nearly all of the urethroplasties (6 of 7; 86%) were completed with a primary closure. The average indwelling duration of suprapubic tube (SPT) catheters was 4.1 weeks (range, 7 to 47 days). The average duration of follow-up was 21.5 months, and all patients were continent at follow-up. No device infections or urethral complications were identified.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Our study illustrates the safety of concomitant urethral repair at time of prosthetic placement as an option to avoid the use of 2 anesthetics and prevent further scarring in high-risk patients.

STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS

This is the first study to address definitive urethral reconstruction during anti-incontinence procedures along with planned concomitant urethroplasty during IPP placement. This promising initial experience is relevant for surgeons who may encounter concomitant urethral pathology in the setting of complex reoperative prosthetic cases. The need for SU is rare, and thus our cohort size was limited in this retrospective, single-institution experience.

CONCLUSION

SU with prolonged SPT urinary diversion offers a safe damage control approach for men with concomitant urethral pathology during prosthetic surgery without conferring an increased risk of infection or stricture. Yi YA, Fuchs JS, Davenport MT, et al. Synchronous Urethral Repair During Prosthetic Surgery: Safety of Planned and Damage Control Approaches Using Suprapubic Tube Urinary Diversion. J Sex Med 2019;16:1106-1110.

Outcomes of Urethroplasty to Treat Urethral Strictures Arising From Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosions and Rates of Subsequent Device Replacement

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the success of urethroplasty for urethral strictures arising after erosion of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and rates of subsequent AUS replacement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From 2009-2016, we identified patients from the Trauma and Urologic Reconstruction Network of Surgeons and several other centers. We included patients with urethral strictures arising from AUS erosion undergoing urethroplasty with or without subsequent AUS replacement. We retrospectively reviewed patient demographics, history, stricture characteristics, and outcomes. Variables in patients with and without complications after AUS replacement were compared using chi-square test, independent samples t test, and Mann-Whitney U test when appropriate.

RESULTS

Thirty-one men were identified with the inclusion criteria. Radical prostatectomy was the etiology of incontinence in 87% of the patients, and 29% had radiation therapy. Anastomotic (28) and buccal graft substitution (3) urethroplasty were performed. Follow-up cystoscopy was done in 28 patients (median 4.5 months, interquartile range [IQR]: 3-8) showing no urethral stricture recurrences. Median overall follow-up was 22.0 months (IQR: 15-38). In 27 men (87%), AUS was replaced at median of 6.0 months (IQR: 4-7) after urethroplasty. In 25 patients with >3 months of follow-up after AUS replacement, urethral complications requiring AUS revision or removal occurred in 9 patients (36%) and included subcuff atrophy (3) and erosion (6). Mean length of stricture was higher in patients who developed a complication after urethroplasty and AUS replacement (2.2 vs. 1.5 cm, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

In patients with urethral stricture after AUS erosion, urethroplasty is successful. However, AUS replacement after urethroplasty has a high erosion rate even in the short-term.

Artificial urinary sphincter urethral erosions: Temporal patterns, management, and incidence of preventable erosions

Introduction:

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the mainstay of surgical treatment for male stress urinary incontinence. Although urethral erosions are a known complication, their temporal distribution and optimal management have not been well characterized. We seek to evaluate the timing, etiologies, and management of urethral erosions in primary AUS implantations.

Materials and Methods:

1802 male patients underwent AUS procedure at Mayo Clinic (Rochester) from 1983 to 2011, including 1082 primary placements. Of primary placements, 63 had a urethral erosion of their device requiring explanation and were included in our analysis. All cases of urethral erosion were confirmed at the time of explantation through cystoscopy and direct visualization. At our institution, explantation is typically performed without primary urethral repair.

Results:

There were 63 cases (5.8%) of urethral erosions of primary AUS devices during the study time frame. The median age at AUS implantation was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR] 68–77 years) and median time to explantation was 21 months (IQR 5–59 months). The temporal trend of AUS erosions demonstrates a peak in the 1^st year, with a gradual tapering of cases thereafter, persisting beyond 10 years. Three of 36 (8.3%) patients with follow-up developed a urethral stricture. Overall, 32/63 patients (51%) underwent salvage AUS reimplantation at a median of 7.1 months (IQR 3.1–12.9 months).

Conclusions:

Urethral erosions tend to occur early (within 1–2 years), with gradual tapering over time. However, continued vigilance is needed after AUS placement to decrease late erosions. These data can be used for counseling and to help guide follow-up care of patients with AUS.

Artificial urinary sphincters for male stress urinary incontinence: current perspectives

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), which has evolved over many years, has become a safe and reliable treatment for stress urinary incontinence and is currently the gold standard. After 4 decades of existence, there is substantial experience with the AUS. Today AUS is most commonly placed for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Only a small proportion of urologists routinely place AUS. In a survey in 2005, only 4% of urologists were considered high-volume AUS implanters, performing >20 per year. Globally, ~11,500 AUSs are placed annually. Over 400 articles have been published regarding the outcomes of AUS, with a wide variance in success rates ranging from 61% to 100%. Generally speaking, the AUS has good long-term outcomes, with social continence rates of ~79% and high patient satisfaction usually between 80% and 90%. Despite good outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients, generally ~25%, will require revision surgery, with the rate of revision increasing with time. Complications requiring revision include infection, urethral atrophy, erosion, and mechanical failure. Most infections are gram-positive skin flora. Urethral atrophy and erosion lie on a spectrum resulting from the same problem, constant urethral compression. However, these two complications are managed differently. Mechanical failure is usually a late complication occurring on average later than infection, atrophy, or erosions. Various techniques may be used during revisions, including cuff relocation, downsizing, transcorporal cuff placement, or tandem cuff placement. Patient satisfaction does not appear to be affected by the need for revision as long as continence is restored. Additionally, AUS following prior sling surgery has comparable outcomes to primary AUS placement. Several new inventions are on the horizon, although none have been approved for use in the US at this point.