Urethral Stricture Formation Following Cuff Erosion of AMS Artificial Urinary Sphincter Devices: Implication for a Less Invasive Explantation Approach

Treatment strategies for revision surgery of artificial urinary sphincter: A review

Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) are an effective treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, infection, erosion, mechanical failure, atrophy, and balloon deterioration cause device malfunction in approximately half of patients by 10 years after implantation. Many patients desire to regain urinary continence and require revision surgery (RS), including device removal and simultaneous or delayed implantation. Patients for whom RS is considered should be examined physically and by interview for signs of infection. Urethral erosion should be assessed using cystoscopy. If there is infection or erosion, all devices should be removed first, and a new device should be implanted several months later. During the RS, after strong adhesion around the urethra, transcorporal cuff implantation is a safe choice. Device removal and simultaneous implantation can be performed in the absence of infection or erosion. If a long time has passed since device implantation, the entire device should be replaced due to device aging and deterioration; however, if the time is short, only the defective component need be replaced. Intraoperative assessment of urethral health is necessary for device removal and implantation. If the urethra is healthy, a new cuff can be placed in the same position as the old cuff was removed from; however, if the urethra is unhealthy, the cuff can be implanted in a more proximal/distal position, or a transcorporal cuff implant may be chosen. This article reviews the literature on diagnostic and treatment strategies for recurrent SUI in male patients with AUS and proposes a flowchart for AUS revision.

Artificial urinary sphincter and stricture disease: surgical principles in management

Iatrogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the most common complication of surgical treatment of prostate cancer, regardless of operative approach, and has a major impact on patients' quality of life. Although SUI can occur after surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, specifically transurethral prostate resection, laser enucleation of the prostate, and simple open prostatectomy, these therapeutic modalities play a much less significant role in the etiology of SUI. Artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation is considered the standard treatment modality providing high success rates, including durable efficacy, and optimal patient satisfaction for moderate to severe urinary incontinence resulting mainly from radical prostatectomy. However, although complication rates are generally acceptably low, revision and/or explantation may be required due to mechanical failure and non-mechanical problems, specifically urethral atrophy/cuff deficient occlusion, infection, and cuff erosion. Several risk factors for AUS failure associated with a fragile, compromised urethra have been identified and these play a critical role in device cuff erosion and subsequent removal of the device. Among others, apparently the most impacting factors are irradiation, urethral stent placement, a previous AUS placement, and importantly presence of urethral stricture or prior urethroplasty. Generally, any clinical situation leading to a diseased urethra or lack of urethral integrity is associated with impaired local blood perfusion, and consequently lower success rates. The present review aims to evaluate the impact of the presence of prior urethral strictures and urethroplasty on the outcomes of AUS implantation on one hand, and vice-versa, the influence of AUS placement on later urethral stricture surgery, particularly following cuff erosion.

Artificial urinary sphincter erosion and infection: a contemporary review of perioperative considerations and management

Surgical treatment options have long been a part of the treatment armamentarium in the field of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and will continue to play an important role moving forward given the dramatic improvement they can have on a patient's quality of life and urinary tract function and control. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is widely considered the gold standard treatment option for male SUI given its breadth of effectiveness in mild, moderate, and severe cases of SUI. As with any surgery, there are potential perioperative risks and complications that all patients must be aware of when weighing the pros and cons of different treatment options. Two of the most dreaded complications of AUS surgery are urethral cuff erosion and device infection, both necessitating a subsequent surgery for device explant. The goal of this clinical practice review article is to examine and discuss the perioperative factors and management of these complications. Effectively treating these complications is of utmost importance, not just to address the acute clinical problem for patient health and safety, but also to provide the patient with the best chance of pursuing AUS replacement surgery in the future, given that the vast majority of these patients will develop recurrent bothersome SUI after the eroded and/or infected device is removed. By reviewing pertinent patient factors, preoperative and postoperative considerations, device-specific characteristics, surgical techniques, and patient counseling, this article serves as a thorough and practical clinical review guide for practicing urologists who perform male incontinence surgery.

Urethral management after artificial urinary sphincter explantation due to cuff erosion

Introduction

The artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard treatment in cases of moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence in males. Cuff erosions are one of the most important distant complications of AUS implantation. The optimal urethral management has still not been established.

Material and methods

Search terms related to 'urethral stricture', 'artificial urinary sphincter', and 'cuff erosion' were used in the PubMed database to identify relevant articles.

Results

In this mini review we identified 6 original articles that assessed the urethral management after AUS explantation due to cuff erosion and included urinary diversion by transurethral and/or suprapubic catheterization, urethrorrhaphy, and in situ urethroplasty. We summarized the results of different management methods and their efficacy in terms of preventing urethral stricture formation. We highlight the need for better-quality evidence on this topic.

Conclusions

The available data do not provide a clear answer to the question of optimal urethral management during AUS explantation. There is a great need to provide higher-quality evidence on this topic.