The impact of incontinence etiology on artificial urinary sphincter outcomes

The "Minimal-Touch" Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to describe "minimal-touch" technique for primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and evaluate early device outcomes by comparing it with a historical cohort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution from 1983 to 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to identify the rate of postoperative device infection in patients who underwent minimal touch versus those who underwent our traditional technique.

RESULTS

526/2601 total procedures (20%) were performed using our "minimal-touch" approach, including 271/1554 patients (17%) who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement over the study period. Around 2.3% of patients experienced device infection after artificial urinary sphincter procedures. In the "minimal-touch" era, 3/526 patients (0.7%) experienced device infection, including 1/271 (0.4%) of those with primary artificial urinary sphincter placement. In comparison, 46/2075 patients (2.7%) experienced device infection using the historical approach, with 29/1283 (2.3%) of primary artificial urinary sphincter placements resulting in removal for infection. Notably, 90% of device infections occurred within the first 6 months after primary placement. The difference in cumulative incidence of device infections at 12 months did not meet our threshold for statistical significance for either the total cohort of all AUS procedures (primary and revision) or the sub-group of only those patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement (Gray K-sample test; P=.13 and .21, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The "minimal-touch" approach for artificial urinary sphincter placement represents an easy-to-implement modification with potential implications on device outcomes. While early results appear promising, longer-term follow-up with greater statistical power is needed to determine whether this approach will lower the infection risk.

A comparison of artificial urinary sphincter outcomes after primary implantation and first revision surgery

Objective

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for severe male stress urinary incontinence, though evaluations of specific predictors for device outcomes are sparse. We sought to compare outcomes between primary and revision AUS surgery for non-infectious failures.

Methods

We identified 2045 consecutive AUS surgeries at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) from 1983 to 2013. Of these, 1079 were primary AUS implantations and 281 were initial revision surgeries, which comprised our study group. Device survival rates, including overall and specific rates for device infection/erosion, urethral atrophy and mechanical failure, were compared between primary AUS placements versus revision surgeries. Patient follow-up was obtained through office examination, written correspondence, or telephone correspondence.

Results

During the study period, 1079 (79.3%) patients had a primary AUS placement and 281 (20.7%) patients underwent a first revision surgery for mechanical failure or urethral atrophy. Patients undergoing revision surgery were found to have adverse 1- and 5-year AUS device survival on Kaplan–Meier analysis, 90% vs. 85% and 74% vs. 61%, respectively (p<0.001). Specifically, revision surgery was associated with a significantly increased cumulative incidence of explantation for device infection/urethral erosion (4.2% vs. 7.5% at 1 year; p=0.02), with similar rates of repeat surgery for mechanical failure (p=0.43) and urethral atrophy (p=0.77).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest a significantly higher rate of overall device failure following revision AUS surgery, which is likely secondary to an increased rate of infection/urethral erosion events.

The Role of Educational Level and Cognitive Status in Men Undergoing Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between education level, cognitive function of patients and the success/ revision rates of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with postprostatectomy incontinence.

METHODS

Between January 2010 and March 2018, 163 patients (mean age, 68 ± 6.8 years) with moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence who underwent AUS implantation were retrospectively examined. Demographic data, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical technique, previous strictures, and radiation therapy were recorded. Incontinence was measured by daily pad use and evaluated by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form. Patients' overall improvement was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. Education level was determined using the International Standard Classification of Education. Cognitive status was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination. Treatment success was defined as the need for ≤1 pad/day at last follow-up.

RESULTS

AUS was successful in 77.3% of patients. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form score improved significantly from 19.9 ± 2.9 to 4.4 ± 5.4 (P = .001). The median outcome reported subjectively on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale was 2.1 ± 1.5 (1-7) and self-reported as "much better." Patients' education level had statistically no significant relationship with AUS success and revision rates. Similarly, there was no significant relationship between cognitive status, educational level and the need for revision of AUS (P >.05). However, patients with moderate cognitive impairment and a body mass index >30 showed significantly lower AUS success rates (P <.05).

CONCLUSION

AUS implantation is safe and effective treatment option especially for nonobese and cognitively intact patients of all educational levels.

Long-term device survival and quality of life outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement

Background

Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement is the standard for treatment of severe male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). While there is evidence to suggest satisfactory device survival, there is a paucity of data addressing long-term quality of life outcomes.

Methods

We identified patients who underwent primary AUS placement from 1983 to 2016. We assessed rates of secondary surgery (overall, device infection/erosion, urethral atrophy, malfunction) and factors associated with these endpoints. Quality of life was evaluated by pad usage and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) at various time points from primary surgery. Follow-up was obtained in clinic or by phoned/mailed correspondence.

Results

During the study time frame, 1,154 patients were eligible and included in the analysis. Patients had a median age of 70 years (IQR, 65-75 years) and median follow up of 5.4 years (IQR, 1.6-10.5 years). Overall device survival was 72% at 5 years, 56% at 10 years, 41% at 15 years, and 33% at 20 years. On univariate analysis, variables associated with need for secondary surgery were prior cryotherapy (HR 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.6; P<0.01) or radiation therapy (HR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.7; P=0.01). On multivariable analysis, only cryotherapy remained significantly associated with this endpoint (HR 2.4; 95% CI, 1.3-4.2; P<0.01). While 36% and 23% of patients 5-10 years out from surgery and >10 years out from surgery, respectively, reported using a security pad or less per day, 78% and 81% of those patients, respectively, reported their PGI-I as at least "much better".

Conclusions

AUS placement has excellent long-term outcomes, and is associated with sustained improvement in patient quality of life.

Management of urethral atrophy after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter: what are the weaknesses?

The use of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence has become more prevalent, especially in the "prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-era", when more patients are treated for localized prostate cancer. The first widely accepted device was the AMS 800, but since then, other devices have also entered the market. While efficacy has increased with improvements in technology and technique, and patient satisfaction is high, AUS implantation still has inherent risks and complications of any implant surgery, in addition to the unique challenges of urethral complications that may be associated with the cuff. Furthermore, the unique nature of the AUS, with a control pump, reservoir, balloon cuff, and connecting tubing, means that mechanical complications can also arise from these individual parts. This article aims to present and summarize the current literature on the management of complications of AUS, especially urethral atrophy. We conducted a literature search on PubMed from January 1990 to December 2018 on AUS complications and their management. We review the various potential complications and their management. AUS complications are either mechanical or nonmechanical complications. Mechanical complications usually involve malfunction of the AUS. Nonmechanical complications include infection, urethral atrophy, cuff erosion, and stricture. Challenges exist especially in the management of urethral atrophy, with both tandem implants, transcorporal cuffs, and cuff downsizing all postulated as potential remedies. Although complications from AUS implants are not common, knowledge of the management of these issues are crucial to ensure care for patients with these implants. Further studies are needed to further evaluate these techniques.

Erosion rates of 3.5-cm artificial urinary sphincter cuffs are similar to larger cuffs

OBJECTIVE

To compare long-term outcomes and erosion rates of 3.5-cm artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuffs vs larger cuffs amongst men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with and without a history of pelvic radiotherapy (RT).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of all men who underwent AUS placement by a single surgeon between September 2009 and June 2017 at our tertiary urban medical centre. A uniform perineal approach was used to ensure cuff placement around the most proximal corpus spongiosum after precise spongiosal measurement. Patients were stratified by cuff size and RT status, and patient demographics and surgical outcomes were analysed. Cases of AUS revision in which a new cuff was not placed were excluded. Success was defined as patient-reported pad use of ≤1 pad/day.

RESULTS

Amongst 410 cases included in the analysis, the 3.5-cm cuff was used in 166 (40.5%), whilst 244 (59.5%) received larger cuffs (≥4.0 cm). Over a median follow-up of 50 months, there was AUS cuff erosion in 44 patients at a rate nearly identical in the 3.5-cm cuff (10.8%, 18/166) and the ≥4-cm cuff groups (10.7%, 26/244, P = 0.7). On multivariate logistic regression, clinical factors associated with AUS cuff erosion included a history of pelvic RT, prior AUS cuff erosion, prior urethroplasty, and a history of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement. Patient demographics were similar between the cuff-size groups; including age, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking history, RT history, prior AUS, and prior IPP placement. Continence rates were high amongst all AUS patients, with similar success in both groups (82% for 3.5-cm cuff, 90% for ≥4-cm cuff, P = 0.1).

CONCLUSIONS

After 8 years of experience and extended follow-up, the outcomes of the 3.5-cm AUS cuff appear to be similar to ≥4-cm cuffs for effectiveness and rates of urethral erosion. RT patients have a higher risk of cuff erosion regardless of cuff size.