Preoperative pad usage is independently associated with failure of non-adjustable male trans-obturator slings in otherwise well-selected patients

Surgical management of post prostatectomy incontinence

Post prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is a well-recognized and bothersome complication following radical prostatectomy. Conservative measures such as pelvic floor physical therapy, biofeedback, and medication are first line management of PPI. When first line therapies fail, patients are offered a variety of surgical procedures based on the degree of incontinence, prior radiation therapy, and comorbidities. Among the various surgical options, placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for PPI. However, AUS placement has a high rate of re-operation and requires good manual dexterity. In cases of mild-moderate incontinence, especially in patients without prior radiation therapy, male slings and proACT are a less invasive option. Bulking therapy, although highly successful for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), is not currently advised in the treatment of male SUI. Regardless of surgical approach used to treat PPI, providers should counsel patients regarding risks of re-operation and have an open an honest discussion regarding the degree of continence that can be restored following each procedure.

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.

Narrative review of male urethral sling for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence: sling type, patient selection, and clinical applications

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following prostate treatment is a devastating complaint for many patients. While the artificial urinary sphincter is the gold standard treatment for male SUI, the urethral sling is also popular due to ease of placement, lack of mechanical complexity, and absence of manual dexterity requirement. A literature review was performed of male urethral sling articles spanning the last zz20 years using the PubMed search engine. Clinical practice guidelines were also reviewed for comparison. Four categories of male urethral sling were evaluated: the transobturator AdVance and AdVance XP, the bone-anchored InVance, the quadratic Virtue, and the adjustable sling series. Well selected patients with mild to moderate urinary incontinence and no prior history of radiation experienced the highest success rates at long-term follow up. Patients with post-prostatectomy climacturia also reported improvement in leakage after sling. Concurrent penile prosthesis and sling techniques were reviewed, with favorable short-term outcomes demonstrated. Male urethral sling is a user-friendly surgical procedure with durable long-term outcomes in carefully selected men with mild stress urinary incontinence. Multiple sling types are available with varying degrees of efficacy and complication rates. Longer follow-up and larger cohort sizes are needed for treatment of newer indications such as climacturia as well as techniques involving dual placement of sling and penile prosthesis.

Five-Year Results of a Prospective Multicenter Trial: AdVance XP for Postprostatectomy-Incontinence in Patients with Favorable Prognostic Factors

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the security, value, and efficacy of the second-generation AdVance male sling XP (Boston Scientific®), after implementation in 2010 with advantageous modifications in the sling structure and needle shape, in a prospective multicenter long-term follow-up study.

METHODS

In total, 115 patients were included. Exclusion criteria were earlier incontinence (UI) surgery, nocturnal UI, former radiotherapy, or night-time incontinence. We also excluded patients with a functional urethra <1 cm in a preoperatively performed repositioning test. A consistent 24-h pad test, International Quality of Life (IQOL) score, visual analog pain scale (VAS), International Consultation-Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ-UI SF), International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores were requested postoperatively.

RESULTS

The 24-month follow-up (114 patients) revealed 64.0% cured and 28.8% improved patients. Mean urine loss was reduced significantly to 19.0 g (p < 0.001). A mean PGI score of 1.5 and a mean VAS score of 0.2 were obtained. The 60-month follow-up (59 patients) revealed 57.6% cured and 25.4% improved patients. Mean urine loss was reduced significantly to 18.3 g (p < 0.001). A mean PGI score of 1.6 and a mean VAS score of 0.2 were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

The AdVance XP displays excellent continence results and secure effectiveness over a 5-year period. Moreover, these data are demonstrating low complication rates and improved quality of life in the long-term use of AdVance XP.

Impact of obesity on male urethral sling outcomes

Background:

The impact of obesity on AdVance male urethral sling outcomes has been poorly evaluated. Anecdotally, male urethral sling placement can be more challenging due to body habitus in obese patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of obesity on surgical complexity using operative time as a surrogate and secondarily to evaluate the impact on postoperative pad use.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using all men who underwent AdVance male urethral sling placement at a single institution between 2013 and 2019. Descriptive statistics comparing obese and non-obese patients were performed.

Results:

A total of 62 patients were identified with median (IQR) follow up of 14 (4–33) months. Of these, 40 were non-obese and 22 (35.5%) were obese. When excluding patients who underwent concurrent surgery, the mean operative times for the non-obese versus obese cohorts were 61.8 min versus 73.7 min (p = 0.020). No Clavien 3–5 grade complications were noted. At follow up, 47.5% of the non-obese cohort and 63.6% of the obese cohort reported using one or more pads daily (p = 0.290). Four of the five patients with a history of radiation were among the patients wearing pads following male urethral sling placement.

Conclusion:

Obese men undergoing AdVance male urethral sling placement required increased operative time, potentially related to operative complexity, and a higher proportion of obese compared with non-obese patients required postoperative pads for continued urinary incontinence. Further research is required to better delineate the full impact of obesity on male urethral sling outcomes.

[Differentiated surgical treatment of male stress urinary incontinence-between intention and reality?]

The differentiated surgical treatment of male urinary incontinence is a very interesting and sometimes also emotional topic, in which evidence is increasingly maturing. Nowadays, the most common surgical procedures are fixed sling and adjustable incontinence systems as well as the artificial urinary sphincter. The evidence for the procedures varies and there is currently a lack of prospective, comparative studies. The challenging question is: Which operation is the best for which patient? The following article is intended to give an overview of the surgical options and a constructive attempt to differentiate the indication.