Slings in the management of male stress urinary incontinence

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.

A historical perspective and evolution of the treatment of male urinary incontinence

AIMS

To describe the historical changes from antiquity until present in the presentation and treatment of male urinary incontinence.

METHODS

A literature review of PubMed articles in English pertaining to male incontinence was performed.

RESULTS

Male urinary incontinence was first mentioned in Egyptian manuscripts in 1500 B.C. In 1564, Ambroise Pare designed portable urinals for incontinent males. Wilhem Hildanus created the first condom catheter with pig bladder in the 1600s and was also credited with fashioning the first penile clamp. Lorenz Heister introduced a perineal bulbar urethral compression belt in 1747 which would provide the blueprint for air-inflated bulbar urethral compression devices such as the one designed by S.A. Vincent in 1960. Robert Gersuny performed the first periurethral paraffin injection bulking therapy in the late 19th century. In 1929, Frederic Foley introduced the modern catheter, and also credited with conception of the first artificial sphincter. From 1970 to 1973, Joseph Kaufman surgically created bulbar compression for post-prostatectomy incontinence, but not before designing the first male sling with John Berry in 1958. In 1973, F. Brantley Scott introduced the first multi-component artificial inflatable sphincter. Improvements upon periurethral bulking therapy occurred rapidly in the late 20th century with Teflon, collagen, autologous adipose, tissue and cross-linked silicone gels. Since 2007, stem cell injection therapy has emerged as a new therapeutic option for incontinence; however, results are mixed and remains experimental.

CONCLUSION

Treatment for male urinary incontinence has evolved from noninvasive devices to various surgical procedures. Artificial sphincters remain the gold-standard therapy for male urinary incontinence.

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.

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.

National study of utilization of male incontinence procedures

AIMS

We explored re-interventions and short and long term adverse events associated with procedures for male incontinence among Medicare beneficiaries.

METHODS

All inpatient and outpatient claims for a simple random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2000-2011 were queried to identify patients of interest. All male patients with an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis code for stress incontinence or mixed incontinence were included. Artificial urinary sphincter recipients, patients who underwent a sling operation and those receiving an injection of a bulking agent were identified with Current Procedure Terminology (CPT-4) and ICD-9 Procedure Codes.

RESULTS

The entire cohort of 1,246 patients were operated on between 2001 and 2011. 34.9% of them received an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), 28.7% with a bulking agent, and 36.4% with a sling. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics or comorbidities between the treatment groups, except that more sling patients were obese (P = 0.006) and fewer bulk patients had diabetes (P = 0.007). There are, however, significant changes in procedures selected over time (P < 0.001). In the first year and over the entire follow-up after surgery, patients treated with bulking agents had the most subsequent interventions (40.1% and 52.9%), followed by sling (10.4% and 15.5%), and AUS (2.3% and 20%) (P < 0.001). Post-operative and 90 day complications were low.

CONCLUSIONS

All three treatments seem to be safe among Medicare beneficiaries with multiple comorbidities. The urological, infectious, and neurological complication occurrences were low.

Urodynamics for postprostatectomy incontinence: when are they helpful and how do we use them?

Urodynamics is indicated for the evaluation of postprostatectomy incontinence unless an artificial urinary sphincter placement is the preferred option, as in cases of severe incontinence, prior radiation, or previous male sling or artificial urinary sphincter placement--when male sling is unlikely to achieve efficacy. Urodynamics should be performed only when there is a question it can answer that would affect treatment choice or outcome. Urodynamic findings of detrusor underactivity, overactivity, and reduced compliance are important considerations in deciding how best to treat postprostatectomy incontinence.