Standing cough test stratification of moderate male stress urinary incontinence

Guiding Clinical Decision Making for Surgical Incontinence Treatment After Prostatectomy: A Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy is a common and debilitating side effect. Immediate post-prostatectomy management emphasizes pelvic floor muscle exercises. Per American Urologic Association guidelines, if incontinence persists for more than 12 months postoperatively, surgical interventions are the mainstay of treatment. Treatment decisions depend on a multitude of factors. The goal of this paper is to review recent literature updates regarding the diagnosis of male SUI to better guide surgical treatment decision-making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patient history is a critical component in guiding surgical decision making with severity and bother being primary factors driving treatment decisions. Recent studies indicate that a history of pelvic radiation continues to impact the overall duration and complication rate associated with artificial urinary sphincters (AUS). Cystoscopy should be done on every patient preparing to undergo surgical SUI treatment. Urodynamics and standing cough stress tests are additional diagnostic testing options; these tests may augment the diagnosis of SUI and better delineate which patients may benefit from a male sling versus AUS. Treatment of SUI after prostatectomy can improve health-related quality of life. A patient history focused on severity and degree of bother in addition to the use of ancillary office testing can help guide surgical treatment decisions to optimize patient continence goals.

Artificial Urinary Sphincters for Moderate Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: Current Research and Proposed Approach

Male urinary incontinence is a common complication after radical prostatectomy. The severity of incontinence can be assessed in various ways and helps determine the best surgical intervention to restore continence. While most patients with mild incontinence receive a sling and those with severe incontinence receive an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), there are no clear guidelines on how to manage patients with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). Our discussion will focus on the current literature, which demonstrates that an AUS should be considered first-line in men with moderate PPI despite perceived concerns over complications and reintervention rates.

Clinical and Urodynamic results of the Argus T® sling in moderate and severe male stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy - a 5 year prospective study

PURPOSE

Sling as a therapeutic option for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has been reviewed in the last two decades, as it is a relatively simpliest surgery compared to artificial urinary sphincter and has the ability to modulate urethral compression. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, rate of complications, quality of life and the effects on bladder emptying of the Argus T® compressive and ajustable sling in moderate and severe male SUI treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men eligible for stress urinary incontinence treatment after radical prostatectomy were recruited and prospectively evaluated, from March 2010 to November 2016. It was selected outpatient men with moderate and severe SUI, after 12 months of radical prostatectomy, who have failed conservative treatment. All patients had a complete clinical and urodynamic pre and post treatment evaluation, by means of clinical history, physical examination, urine culture, 1-hour pad test and ICIq-SF questionnaire. The UDS was performed after 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven men underwent sling surgery, 19 patients (51.4%) with moderate and 18 (48.6%) with severe SUI. The minimum follow-up time was 5 years. Overall, we had a success rate of 56.7% at 60 months follow-up. After surgery, we did not observe significant changes in the urodynamic parameters evaluated during the follow-up. No patient had urodynamic bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) after sling implantation. Readjustment of the Argus T® sling was performed in 16 (41%) of the patients and 51% of the patients reported some adverse event.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate a long-term efficacy and safety of Sling Argus T® as an alternative to moderate and severe male SUI treatment. Furthermore, in our study bulbar urethra compression does not lead to bladder outlet obstruction.

Refined Nomogram Incorporating Standing Cough Test Improves Prediction of Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System (ATOMS) Success to Treat Post-Prostatectomy Male Stress Incontinence

(1) Background: The adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) device serves to treat post-prostatectomy incontinence, as it enhances residual urinary sphincteric function by dorsal compression of the bulbar urethra. We investigated the clinical parameters affecting continence recovery using this device and developed a decision aid to predict success. (2) Methods: We reviewed consecutive men treated with first-time ATOMS for post-prostatectomy incontinence from 2014 to 2021 at our institution. Patient demographics, reported pads per day (PPD), 24-h pad-test and Standing Cough Test (SCT), results’ grades 1–4, according to Male Stress Incontinence Grading Scale (MSIGS), and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) questionnaire were assessed. Treatment success was defined as no pads or a single PPD with ≤20-mL 24-h pad-test. Logistic regression was performed using a stepwise model (entry 0.15 and stay criterium 0.1) to evaluate independent variables’ determinant of dryness. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves for predictive variables were evaluated and their area under curve (AUC) was compared. A nomogram was generated and internally validated to predict probability of treatment success. (3) Results: Overall, 149 men (median age 70 years, IQR 7) were evaluated with a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 26). Twelve patients (8%) had previous devices for incontinence, and 21 (14.1%) had pelvic radiation. Thirty-five men (23.5%) did not achieve continence after ATOMS adjustment (use of no or one security PPD with ≤20-mL 24-h pad-test). In univariate analysis, Charlson comorbidity index (p = 0.0412), previous urethroplasty (p = 0.0187), baseline PPD (p < 0.0001), 24-h pad-test (p < 0.0001), MSIGS (p < 0.0001), and ICIQ-SF questionnaire score (p < 0.0001) predicted ATOMS failure. In a multivariable model, 24-h pad-test (p = 0.0031), MSIGS (p = 0.0244), and radiotherapy (p = 0.0216) were independent variables, with AUC 0.8221. The association of MSIGS and 24-h pad-test was the superior combination (AUC 0.8236). A nomogram to predict the probability of ATOMS failure using the independent variables identified was proposed. (4) Conclusions: Several variables were identified as predictive of success for ATOMS using clinical history, physical examination (MSIGS), and factors that evaluate urine loss severity (PPD, 24-h pad-test, and ICIQ-SF questionnaire). MSIGS adds prognostic value to 24-h pad-test in assessing success of ATOMS device to treat post-prostatectomy incontinence. A nomogram was proposed to calculate the risk of ATOMS failure, which could be of interest to personalize the decision to use this device or not in the individual patient.