Argus T® versus Advance® Sling for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A randomized clinical trial

Adjustable Male Sling for The Treatment of Postprostatectomy Stress Urinary Incontinence: Intermediate-Term Follow-Up Results

Objective To evaluate the outcomes of adjustable male sling (Argus®) implantation in the management of post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) with intermediate-term follow-up results. Materials and methods The data on adjustable male sling surgery between September 2015 and September 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were preoperatively evaluated with a voiding diary, 24-hour pad test, and validated questionnaire. Functional outcomes were also evaluated using 24-hour pad requirement and pad weight, and the International Consultation on Incontinence (ICIQ-SF) score. Results A total of 16 patients (eight having undergone the transurethral resection of the prostate [TUR-P] and eight radical prostatectomy [RP]) were enrolled in the study. Thirteen patients had moderate (81.25%) PPI, and three patients (18.75%) had severe PPI. With the mean follow-up of 36.9±14.3 months, nine patients (56.2%) were noted as cured and four (25%) as improved, with an overall success rate of 81.2%. At the last follow-up visit, the median number of pads used per day decreased from 3.5 to 1, and the 24-hour pad test result decreased from 300 to 50 gr (p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively). The ICIQ-SF score decreased from the initial mean of 15.8 ± 2.3 to 7.1 ± 6.6 (p < 0.001). When the outcomes were compared according to the etiology, there was no statistically significant difference (p = 0.522). Conclusions Male sling surgery can be performed safely in patients with moderate and severe stress urinary incontinence with low complication and high success rates. The results of TUR-P-related PPI are similar to those of surgery performed due to the etiology of RP.

European Association of Urology Guidelines on Male Urinary Incontinence

CONTEXT

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common condition in elderly men causing a severe worsening of quality of life, and a significant cost for both patients and health systems.

OBJECTIVE

To report a practical, evidence-based, guideline on definitions, pathophysiology, diagnostic workup, and treatment options for men with different forms of UI.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive literature search, limited to studies representing high levels of evidence and published in the English language, was performed. Databases searched included Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Libraries. A level of evidence and a grade of recommendation were assigned.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

UI can be classified into stress urinary incontinence (SUI), urge urinary incontinence (UUI), and mixed urinary incontinence. A detailed description of the pathophysiology and diagnostic workup has been reported. Simple clinical interventions, behavioural and physical modifications, and pharmacological treatments comprise the initial management for all kinds of UI. Surgery for SUI includes bulking agents, male sling, and compression devices. Surgery for UUI includes bladder wall injection of botulinum toxin A, sacral nerve stimulation, and cystoplasty/urinary diversion.

CONCLUSIONS

This 2022 European Association of Urology guideline summary provides updated information on definition, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of male UI.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Male urinary incontinence comprises a broad subject area, much of which has been covered for the first time in the literature in a single manuscript. The European Association of Urology Non-neurogenic Male Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Guideline Panel has released this new guidance, with the aim to provide updated information for urologists to be able to follow diagnostic and therapeutic indications for optimising patient care.

Current Management of Post-radical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in men worldwide. Radical prostatectomy and radiation beam therapy are the most common treatment options for localized prostate cancer and have different associated complications. The etiology of post prostatectomy incontinence is multifactorial. There is evidence in the literature that anatomic support and pelvic innervation are important factors in the etiology of post-prostatectomy incontinence. Among the many surgical and technical factors proposed in the literature, extensive dissection during surgery, damage to the neurovascular bundle and the development of postoperative fibrosis have a substantial negative impact on the continence status of men undergoing RP. Sparing of the bladder neck and anterior, and possibly posterior, fixation of the bladder-urethra anastomosis are associated with better continence rates. Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB) is multifactorial and the exact role of prostate surgery in the development of OAB is still under debate. There are several variables that could contribute to detrusor overactivity. Detrusor overactivity in patients after radical prostatectomy has been mainly attributed to a partial denervation of the bladder during surgery. However, together with bladder denervation, other hypotheses, such as the urethrovesical mechanism, have been described. Although there is conflicting evidence regarding the importance of conservative treatment after post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is still considered as the first treatment choice. Duloxetin, either alone or in combination with PFMT, may hasten recovery of urinary incontinence but is often associated with severe gastrointestinal and central nervous side effects. However, neither PFMT nor duloxetine may cure male stress urinary incontinence. The therapeutic decision and the chosen treatment option must be individualized for each patient according to clinical and social factors. During the recent years, the development of new therapeutic choices such as male sling techniques provided a more acceptable management pathway for less severe forms of urinary incontinence related to radical prostatectomy. Following this perspective, technological improvements and the emergence of new dedicated devices currently create the premises for a continuously positive evolution of clinical outcomes in this particular category of patients.

Argus-T adjustable male sling: A follow-up study on urinary incontinence and patient's satisfaction

AIMS

The use of Argus-T adjustable sling may be a promising alternative option for the treatment of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy, however long-term data is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term results of the Argus-T sling on incontinence rates, patient's quality of life and tape-related complications.

METHODS

Patients were eligible if persistent stress incontinence was present ≥12 months after radical prostatectomy. Measurements included 24 h frequency volume micturition list, 24 h pad test, 24 h pad count and quality of life questionnaires. Argus-T adjustable sling was placed with a single perineal route incision approach.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients were included, 69 ± 6 years, pre-intervention 24 h urinary loss 212 (75-385) g. Directly after surgery, 63.6% of the patients was completely dry, 79.2% of the patients reported greater than 90% improvement of their urinary loss and 92.2% > 50% improvement. Median follow-up time was 3.2 (2.5-6.1) years. After 5 years of follow-up, 53.3% of the patients were completely dry, 71.5% reported an improvement greater than 90% and 79.6% reported an improvement of greater than 50%. Patients with preoperative urinary loss less than 250 g reported significantly higher improvement of their urinary loss compared to patients with urinary loss ≥250 g (p = .02). Patients satisfaction was still increased after 5 years follow-up (70 ± 21 vs.16 ± 9, p < .001) and patients quality of life remained high (85 ± 20 vs. 88 ± 13, p = .1). Complications were mainly observed directly after surgery. Two patients (2.6%) needed reimplantation of the sling.

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that Argus-T sling is an effective treatment option in obtaining substantial long-term incontinence relief in patients with invalidating moderate stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.

Fixed or adjustable sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: results from a large cohort study

Background

Fixed and adjustable male slings for the treatment of male urinary stress incontinence became increasingly popular during the last decade. Although fixed slings are recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence, there is still a lack of evidence regarding the precise indication for an adjustable male sling. Furthermore, there is still no evidence that one type of male sling is superior to another. However, both, adjustable and fixed slings, are commonly utilized in daily clinical practice. This current investigation aims to evaluate the differences between fixed and adjustable male slings regarding indications, complication rates and functional outcome in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence in current clinical practice.

Methods

A total of 294 patients with a fixed and 176 patients with an adjustable male sling were evaluated in a multicenter single arm cohort trial. Data collection was performed retrospectively according the medical record. Functional outcome was prospectively analyzed by standardized, validated questionnaires. Descriptive statistics was performed to present patient characteristics, complication rates and functional outcome. A chi2-test for categorical and independent t-test for continuous variables was performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups and to correlate preoperative characteristics with the outcome. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patients with higher degree of urinary incontinence (P<0.001) and risk factors such as history of pelvic irradiation (P<0.001) or prior surgery for urethral stricture (P=0.032) were more likely to receive an adjustable MS. Complication rates were comparable except for infection (P=0.009, 0 vs. 2.3%) and pain (P=0.001, 1.7% vs. 11.3%) which occurred more frequently in adjustable slings. Functional outcome according validated questionnaires demonstrated no differences between fixed and adjustable male slings.

Conclusions

Adjustable male slings are more frequently utilized in patients with higher degree of incontinence and risk factors compared to fixed slings. No differences could be identified between functional outcome which may imply an advantage for adjustability. However, pain and infection rates were significantly higher in adjustable MS and should be considered in the decision process for sling type.

Adjustable sling for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: systematic review and meta-analysis

Urinary incontinence after prostatectomy has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of the patient. The surgical treatment includes several models of male slings, such as adjustable slings. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjustable sling in the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. This is a systematic review of literature. The following electronic databases were searched until January 2018: PubMed®, Embase, CENTRAL and LILACS. The keywords used in the search strategies were: "prostatectomy" [Mesh], "urinary incontinence" [Mesh] and "suburethral slings" [Mesh]. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with or without Control Group, and follow-up of more than 12 months were included. Only one randomized study with high risk of bias was included and it concluded the effectiveness equivalence between adjustable and non-adjustable slings. All other studies were cases series with patients of varying levels of incontinence intensity and history of pelvic radiation therapy and previous surgeries. The meta-analysis for 0 pad in 24 hours demonstrated an effectiveness of 53%. For the 0 to 1 pad test in 24 hours, the meta-analysis resulted in an effectiveness of 69%. Risk factors for surgery failure include prior radiation, severity of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, and previous surgeries. The meta-analysis of the extrusion rate was 9.8% and the most commonly reported adverse effects were pain and local infection. Evidence of low quality indicates that adjustable slings are effective for treating post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, with frequency of adverse events similar to the surgical option considered gold standard (the artificial urinary sphincter implant).

Male Slings for Postprostatectomy Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Male slings are recommended by the European Association of Urology guideline for the treatment of mild to moderate postprostatectomy incontinence. However, none of them has been proved to be superior to the others, and there are no defined guidelines to preference of a given sling model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of the different types of male slings in the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. A systematic literature search in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane using the keywords "incontinence," "prostatectomy," and "male sling/system" was conducted in June 2018. Studies in English with at least 15 patients and a minimum follow-up of 12 mo were included. As the primary endpoint, we assessed the cure rate of the different sling types. As secondary endpoints, we assessed the improvement rate, subjective cure rate, overall complication rate, explantation rate, risk factors for failure, and effect on patients' quality of life.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 833 articles. A total of 64 studies with 72 patient cohorts were eligible for inclusion. Fixed slings were implanted in 55 (76.4%) of the patient cohorts. The objective cure rate varies between 8.3% and 87% (pooled estimate 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.56, I²=82%). Subjective cure was achieved in 33-94.4%. Adjustable slings showed objective cure rates between 17% and 92% (pooled estimate 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.71, I²=88%). The subjective cure rate varies between 28% and 100%. In both types of slings, pain was the most common complication, but chronic painful conditions were really rare (1.3% in fixed slings and 1.5% in adjustable slings). The most common complication after pain was urinary retention in fixed slings, and infection and consequential explantation in adjustable slings.

CONCLUSIONS

Both fixed and adjustable slings are beneficial for the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence. Although adjustable slings might lead to higher objective cure rates, they might be associated with higher complication and explantation rates. However, at present, due to significant heterogeneity of the data, this cannot be said with certainty. More randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and the same definition for continence are needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Fixed and adjustable slings are effective treatment options in mild to moderate postprostatectomy incontinence.

Evaluation of urodynamic parameters after sling surgery in men with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence

Objective:

To evaluate urodynamic alterations after sub-urethral sling surgery (SSU) in patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI).

Materials and Methods:

We evaluated data of 22 patients submitted to radical prosta- tectomy (RP) or transurethral resection of prostate (TURP) that presented post-surgical urinary incontinence and were treated with SSU implant in a pilot study previously performed in our institution.

Methods:

Those patients with PPUI were evaluated by urodynamic exam (UD) before and after surgery, and the parameters were compared, including uroflow, cystometry and micturition study. Exclusion criteria included patients without pre-operatory urodynamic study, those with urethral stenosis, those not healed of prostate cancer, pa- tients without clinical conditions to be submitted to urodynamic study and those with severe neurological diseases or that refused to sign the consent form. Results were analyzed statistically by Fisher, Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney tests.

Results:

During free uroflow, none parameters showed any statistical significant differ- ences. During cystometry, there were also no statistical differences and the same was observed at pressure versus flow study; the exception was at maximal flow detrusor pressure (PdetQmax), that was lower at post-operatory (p=0.028). In relation to the presence of urinary dysfunctions associated to PPUI, we observed a significant reduc- tion of detrusor overactivity (p=0.035) in relation to pre-operatory period.

Conclusion:

SSU surgery significantly reduced detrusor overactivity and PdetQMax; however, there were no alterations of other evaluated urodynamic parameters.