Primary and revision artificial urinary sphincter for stress urinary incontinence post-radical prostatectomy: a surgery with high rewards but high risks?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/sju.v59.42340Keywords:
Artificial urinary sphincter, Stress urinary incontinence, Prostheses and Implants, Surgical outcomes, Prostate cancerAbstract
Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with stress urinary incontinence post-radical prostatectomy and the complication burden with a focus on identifying potential risk factors for reoperation as well as determining the fate of revision surgeries.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing primary AUS (pAUS) and revision AUS (rAUS) implantation at a tertiary centre. Logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for reoperation associated with non-mechanical failures. Kaplan Meier method was applied to generate implant patency curves.
Results: Over 11-years, 108 and 28 patients underwent pAUS and rAUS, respectively. Amongst the former group, a 30-day complication rate of 20.4% was found with a complete (zero pad) dryness rate at follow-up of 49.1%. Post-operative infection was the commonest occurring complication in 7.4%. After pAUS, 27.8% underwent reoperation with cuff erosion being the top indication in 46.7%. Diabetes was a significant predictor for reoperation with an associated 3.6-fold increased risk. The 3-year and 5-year device survival rates without reoperation for pAUS were 80% and 76%, respectively. For rAUS, complete dryness rates achieved were lower at 32.1%. The rate of reoperation was higher at 42.9% with a significantly worse survival probability compared to pAUS (p = 0.024).
Conclusions: Whilst men may achieve complete dryness after pAUS, the potential complication burden and risk of reoperation are not low, and patients need to be counselled regarding this. Chances of continence success are lower when revision surgery is performed with a worse implant survival probability.
Downloads
References
Hoyland K, Vasdev N, Abrof A, et al. Post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: etiology and prevention. Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):181–188.
Katsimperis S, Juliebø-Jones P, Ta A, Tandogdu Z, Al-Bermani O, Bellos T, Esperto F, Tonyali S, Mitsogiannis I, Skolarikos A, Varkarakis I, Somani BK, Tzelves L. Surgical techniques to preserve continence after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Front Surg. 2023 Nov 3;10:1289765. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1289765. PMID: 38026481; PMCID: PMC10655003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1289765
Bernardes M, Chagas SC, Izidoro LCR, et al. Impact of urinary incontinence on the quality of life of individuals undergoing radical prostatectomy. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2019;27:e3131. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2757.3131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.2757.3131
Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, et al. Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2019;202(2):369–378. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000314 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000314
Ventimiglia E, Folkvaljon Y, Carlsson S, et al. Nationwide, population-based study of post radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence correction surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117(2):321–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24816 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24816
Ameli G, Chartier-Kastler EJ, Anding RG, et al. Artificial urinary sphincters in males and females and neurogenic patients, techniques, and indications. Continence Rep. 2023;6:100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contre.2023.100028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contre.2023.100028
Chen YC, Lin PH, Jou YY, Lin VC. Surgical treatment for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):e0130867. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130867 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0130867
Smith WJ, VanDyke ME, Venishetty N, et al. Surgical management of male stress incontinence: techniques, indications, and pearls for success. Res Rep Urol. 2023;15:217–232. https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S395359 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/RRU.S395359
Gravas S, Cornu J, Gacci M, et al. EAU Guidelines on management of non-neurogenic male LUTS including benign prostatic obstruction. European Association of Urology: Arnhem, The Netherland; 2022.
Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, et al. Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology. 2015;86(3):602–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.05.029 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.05.029
Roth I, Juliebo-Jones P, Arvei Moen C, et al. Outcomes with the Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery and the impact of previous radiotherapy. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2024;62:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.02.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euros.2024.02.016
Brant WO, Martins FE. Artificial urinary sphincter. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(4):682–694. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.07.31 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau.2017.07.31
R Core Team R. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. R Found. Stat. Comput; 2017 [cited 2022 Sep 20]. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/
Shaw NM, Nik-Ahd F, Jones C, et al. Patient decision-making for surgical treatment of post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a mixed-methods exploratory pilot study. Transl Androl Urol. 2023;12(5):849–858. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-618 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-22-618
Hampson LA, Suskind AM, Breyer BN, et al. Predictors of regret among older men after stress urinary incontinence treatment decisions. J Urol. 2022;207(4):885–892. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002352 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002352
Dunbar A, Heinlen J, Slobodov G, et al. Application of the decisional regret scale (DRS) in men undergoing anti-incontinence procedures for stress urinary incontinence. Transl Androl Urol. 2023;12(9):1408–1415. https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-23-105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-23-105
Juliebo-Jones P, Roth I, Tzelves L, et al. Current status of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS(TM)) for male stress urinary incontinence. Front Surg. 2024;11:1377788. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1377788 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2024.1377788
Bhatt NR, Pavithran A, Ilie C, Smith L, Doherty R. Post-prostatectomy incontinence: a guideline of guidelines. BJU Int. 2024 May;133(5):513-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16233. Epub 2023 Dec 13. PMID: 38009420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16233
Mamane J, Sanchez S, Lellouch AG, et al. Impact of radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients: a multicenter study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(1):332–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24825
Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, et al. The impact of diabetes mellitus and obesity on artificial urinary sphincter outcomes in men. Urology. 2016;98:176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.038 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.06.038
Biardeau X, Hached S, Loutochin O, et al. Montreal electronic artificial urinary sphincters: our futuristic alternatives to the AMS800. Can Urol Assoc J. 2017;11(10):E396–E404. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4493 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.4493
Weibl P, Hoelzel R, Rutkowski M, et al. VICTO and VICTO-plus – novel alternative for the mangement of postprostatectomy incontinence. Early perioperative and postoperative experience. Cent Eur J Urol. 2018;71(2):248–249.
Bernard C, Bentellis I, El-Akri M, et al. Primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter using the perineal and penoscrotal approaches: functional results and assessment of reoperative procedures. Fr J Urol. 2024;34(3):102604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fjurol.2024.102604 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fjurol.2024.102604
Sacco E, Marino F, Gandi C, Bientinesi R, Totaro A, Moretto S, Gavi F, Campetella M, Racioppi M. Transalbugineal Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Refined Implantation Technique to Improve Surgical Outcomes. J Clin Med. 2023 Apr 21;12(8):3021. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12083021. PMID: 37109357; PMCID: PMC10141998 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12083021
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ingunn Roth, Karin Margrethe Hjelle, Charlotte Josefine Johansen, Christian Arvei Moen, Christian Beisland, Patrick Juliebø-Jones
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
As from Volume 59 (2024) all published articles, unless otherwise specified, are published under CC-BY license, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, with the condition of proper attribution to the original work.
