Robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter implantation

Neurological sphincter deficiency: is there a place for artificial urinary sphincter?

PURPOSE

Neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (N-SUI) is a condition with serious impact on the quality of life. There are several treatment modalities of which the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) stands out as the most suitable technique for addressing sphincter insufficiency. In this article, the purpose is to describe practical considerations, outcomes, and complications of the artificial urinary sphincter in neurological sphincter deficiency in both males and females.

METHODS

A narrative review of the current literature.

RESULTS

The outcomes of AUS are reasonably good in patients with NLUTD, the surgical technique is discussed as well as the limitations and special considerations in this complex and heterogeneous patient population.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that its efficacy and functional durability may be lower in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) compared to those without neurological deficits. However, studies have shown that AUS can still provide effective and safe continence outcomes in both male and female patients, with long-term device survival rates ranging from several years to over a decade.

Robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revisions for women suffering from non-neurogenic stress incontinence: a single center experience

PURPOSE

Patients with artificial urinary eventually need surgical revision. Unfortunately, in women, this requires another invasive abdominal intervention. Robotic-assisted revision may provide a less invasive and more acceptable approach for sphincter revision in women. We wanted to determinate the continence status after robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revision among women with stress incontinence. We also examined postoperative complications and the safety of the procedure.

METHODS

The chart of the 31 women with stress urinary incontinence who underwent robotic-assisted AUS revision at our referral center from January 2015 to January 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. All patients underwent a robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revision by one of our two expert surgeons. The primary outcome was to determinate the continence rate after revision and the secondary outcome aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the procedure.

RESULTS

Mean patients age was 65 years old, and the mean time between the sphincter revision and previous implantation was 98 months. After a mean follow-up of 35 months, 75% of the patients were fully continent (0-pad). Moreover, 71% of the women were back to the same continence status as with the previously functional sphincter, while 14% even have an improved continence status. Clavien-Dindo grade [Formula: see text] 3 and overall complications occurred in 9% and 20.5% of our patients, respectively. This study is mainly limited by its retrospective design.

CONCLUSION

Robotic-assisted AUS revision carries satisfying outcome in terms of continence and safety.

Efficacy and Safety of Robot-assisted AUS Implantation Surgery in Treating Severe Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation surgery for female patients with severe stress urinary incontinences (SUI) by performing a systematic literature review.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was carried out across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science Clarivate, Cochrane library, Medicine and clinicaltrials.gov between inception to March 2022. Studies were included if they met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated by different quality evaluation methods according to study types. P value and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of outcome measures mainly including continence rates, intraoperative and postoperative complication rates were pooled to present the efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies with 157 participants were finally included. Eight retrospective and 1 prospective study met the inclusion criteria with moderate and high evidence levels. The pooled results showed that patients with robot-assisted AUS implantation treatment, presented great continence rate (P = .83, 95%CI:0.76-0.89) but high complication rate (Intraoperation: 0.21 95%CI:0.11-0.34; Postoperation: 0.20 95%CI: 0.12-0.29). In addition, subgroup analysis of 2 approaches showed that compared with the posterior approach, the traditional surgical approach had better efficacy and safety.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study indicated that robot-assisted AUS implantation surgery improved SUI patients' urinary continence, but the complication rates were high, which mainly included intraoperative vaginal and bladder injury and postoperative acute urinary retention. More evidence from prospective studies is needed to provide guidance for clinical practice.