The Asia-Pacific AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter consensus statement

Comparing the lifespan of virgin artificial urinary sphincters in radiated patients: transcorporal vs. standard placement

PURPOSE

To compare the lifespan of first transcorporal cuff (TC) placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus standard placement (SP) in patients with prior radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We reviewed first (virgin) AUS placements from two high-volume care centers between 1/2011 and 1/2021, including PCa patients with RT history. AUS lifespan was assessed via the hazard ratio of device explantation and/or revision within a ten-year timeframe for the TC vs. SP approaches. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and t-tests compared clinicodemographic variables. Kaplan-Meier curve compared TC and SP lifespan.

RESULTS

85/314 men with AUS met inclusion criteria, with 38.8% (33/85) in the TC group and 61.2% (52/85) in the SP group. Median ages were 69.8 (IQR = 65.2-73.6) and 67.1 (61.6-72.9), respectively, p = 0.17. Over a median follow up of 51.9 (15.8-86.1) and 80.4 (28.1-128.3) months for the TC and SP, overall, 12 (36.4%) TC devices were removed (four [12.1%] due to mechanical failures; eight [24.2%] erosions, and two [6.1%] infections) vs. 29 (55.8%) in the SP group (14 [26.9%] mechanical failures; 11 [21.1%] erosions, and five [9.6%] infections). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two approaches, with HR = 0.717, 95% CI 0.37-1.44, p = 0.35. The calculated device survival probabilities for the TC vs. SP at one, five, and 10 years were 78.8% vs. 76.9%, 69.3% vs. 58.7%, and 62.1% vs. 46.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TC cuff insertion for the first AUS implantation in pre-radiated patients showed to be comparable to SP when it comes to device survival, with comparable complication rates. Current guidance for approach selection is primarily based on patient selection and surgeon preference.

[Use of implants to treat male urinary incontinence]

Treatments for benign and malignant pathologies of the prostate can compromise urine control. Urinary incontinence (UI) affects the quality of life of patients and limits their ability to carry out usual activities. The degree of impact of UI is variable and the associated discomforts make patients seek treatment for it. At the center of the management of urinary incontinence in men are surgical interventions that seek to replace the affected sphincter function through implants. The artificial urinary sphincter since its development in the 1970s has been considered the standard of treatment for UI in men. More recently artificial sphincter and slings have been shown to be effective in a selected group of incontinent men. The goals of surgical treatment of incontinence include the preservation of bladder function, the ability to improve the strength of the urinary sphincter, and to reduce or eliminate urine leakage, and thereby improve the quality of life. The aim of the article is to present various implants for the correction of male urinary incontinence.

Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: Techniques, Indications, and Pearls for Success

Purpose

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has detrimental and long-lasting effects on patients. Management of this condition is an evolving field with multiple options for surgical treatment. We sought to review the pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative considerations, post-operative care, and future directions for treatment of male SUI.

Methods

A literature review was performed using the PubMed platform to identify peer-reviewed, English-language articles published within the last 5 years pertaining to management of male stress urinary incontinence with an emphasis on devices currently on the market in the United States including the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), male urethral slings, and the ProACT^TM system. Patient selection criteria, success rates, and complications were compared between the studies.

Results

Twenty articles were included in the final contemporary review. Pre-operative workup most commonly included demonstration of incontinence, PPD, and cystoscopy. Definition of success varied by study; the most common definition used was social continence (0-1 pads per day). Reported rates of success were higher for the AUS than for male urethral slings (73-93% vs 70-90%, respectively). Complications for these procedures include urinary retention, erosions, infections, and device malfunction. Newer treatment options including adjustable balloon systems and adjustable slings show promise but lack long-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Patient selection remains the primary consideration for surgical decision-making for management of male SUI. The AUS continues to be the gold standard for moderate-to-severe male SUI but comes with inherent risk of need for revision. Male slings may be a superior option for appropriately selected men with mild incontinence but are inferior to the AUS for moderate and severe incontinence. Ongoing research will shed light on long-term results for newer options such as the ProACT and REMEEX systems.

Current Surgical Treatment for Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction in Patients with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury

This study aimed to present a comprehensive literature review of the efforts of a spinal cord injury workgroup in Taiwan regarding urologic surgery for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) in patients with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Surgical procedures should be viewed as a final option for managing patients with SCI who have persistent symptoms and complications that cannot be resolved by other means. Surgeries can be grouped according to their purpose: reducing bladder pressures, reducing urethra resistance, increasing urethra resistance, and urinary diversion. The choice of surgery depends on the type of LUTD based on urodynamic tests. Additionally, cognitive function, hand motility, comorbidities, efficacy of surgery, and related complications should be considered.