Long-term outcome of adjustable transobturator male system for stress urinary incontinence in the Iberian multicentre study.
adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS)
durability
effectiveness
long-term results
male incontinence
Journal
Neurourology and urodynamics
ISSN: 1520-6777
Titre abrégé: Neurourol Urodyn
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8303326
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2020
08 2020
Historique:
received:
20
04
2020
revised:
01
05
2020
accepted:
17
05
2020
pubmed:
5
6
2020
medline:
2
4
2021
entrez:
5
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study is to evaluate long-term durability and effectiveness of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS). The retrospective multicenter Iberian ATOMS study (n = 215) was updated to evaluate long-term continence status, complications, explants, and secondary treatments. Mean follow-up from surgery to March 2020 was 60.6 ± 18.4 months (range, 39-91). Eleven patients deceased of an unrelated causes. Kaplan-Meier curves were performed to evaluate device durability and incontinence free of recurrence interval. The multivariate analysis defined the population at risk of device explant. A total of 155 patients were dry at the last follow-up visit (72.1%); 99 (46%) used no pads and 56 (26%) used a security pad/day with urine loss less than 10 mL; 96% of dry patients after adjustment remained free of incontinence 1 year later, 93.6% 2 years later, 91.1% 3 years later, 89.2% 5 years later, and 86.7% 8 years later. Complications during follow-up occurred in 43 of 215 (20%). In total, 25 (11.6%) devices were explanted and causes were inefficacy 11 (44%), inefficacy and pain 3 (12%), port erosion 10 (40%), and wound infection 1 (4%). The secondary implant was performed in 11 (5.1%) cases, 6 artificial urinary sphincter and 5 repeated ATOMS. Time to explant was associated to complications (P < .0001), baseline stress urinary incontinence (SUI) severity (P = .01), and former irradiation (P = .03). Multivariate analysis revealed complications (hazard ratio [HR] = 8.71; 3.83-19.82), baseline SUI severity (>5 compared to 1-2 pads/day; HR = 14.9; 1.87-125), and irradiation before ATOMS (HR = 2.26; 1.02-5.18) predicted earlier ATOMS explant. Three cases received radiation after implant without complication. ATOMS device is efficacious and safe in the long term. Determinants for device explant include complications, baseline severity of incontinence, and previous irradiation. Currently, the durability of the device after 5 years is reassuring.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1737-1745Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Averbeck MA, Marcelissen T, Anding R, Rahnama'i MS, Sahai A, Tubaro A. How can we prevent postprostatectomy urinary incontinence by patient selection, and by preoperative, peroperative, and postoperative measures? International Consultation on Incontinence-Research Society 2018. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(suppl 5):S119-S126.
Kim PH, Pinheiro LC, Atoria CL, Eastham JA, Sandhu JS, Elkin EB. Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: a population based analysis. J Urol. 2013;189:602-608.
Ventimiglia E, Folkvaljon Y, Carlsson S, et al. Nationwide, population-based study of post radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence correction surgery. J Surg Oncol. 2018;117:321-327.
Nelson M, Dornbier R, Kirshenbaum E, et al. Use of surgery for post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol. 2020;203:786-791.
Hermans B, Van der Aa F. Surgery for male stress incontinence: which technique and when? Eur Urol Focus. 2019;5:310-311.
Esquinas C, Angulo JC. Effectiveness of adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) to treat male stress incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Ther. 2019;36:426-441.
Angulo JC, Schönburg S, Giammò A, Abellán FJ, Arance I, Lora D. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) and adjustable continence therapy (ProACT) for male stress incontinence. PLoS One. 2019;14(12):e0225762.
Hoda MR, Primus G, Fischereder K, et al. Early results of a European multicentre experience with a new self-anchoring adjustable transobturator system for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men. BJU Int. 2013;111:296-303.
Friedl A, Mühlstädt S, Zachoval R, et al. Long-term outcome of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS): results of a European multicentre study. BJU Int. 2017;119:785-792.
Angulo JC, Cruz F, Esquinas C, et al. Treatment of male stress urinary incontinence with the adjustable transobturator male system: outcomes of a multi-center Iberian study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:1458-1466.
Doiron RC, Saavedra A, Haines T, et al. Canadian experience with the adjustable transobturator male system for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a multicenter study. J Urol. 2019;202:1022-1028.
Giammò A, Ammirati E, Tullio A, et al. Implant of ATOMS® system for the treatment of postoperative male stress urinary incontinence: an Italian multicentric study. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.19.03457-X
Angulo JC, Arance I, Ojea A, et al. Patient satisfaction with adjustable transobturator male system in the Iberian multicenter study. World J Urol. 2019;37:2189-2197.
Mühlstädt S, Angulo JC, Mohammed N, Schumann A, Fornara P. Complications of the urinary incontinence system ATOMS: description of risk factors and how to prevent these pitfalls. World J Urol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02962-w
Seweryn J, Bauer W, Ponholzer A, Schramek P. Initial experience and results with a new adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2012;187:956-961.
Twiss CO, Fischer MC, Nitti VW. Comparison between reduction in 24-hour pad weight, International Consultation on Incontinence-Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and Post-operative Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score in patient evaluation after male perineal sling. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26:8-13.
https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5x11.pdf. Accessed May 21, 2020.
Angulo JC, Esquinas C, Arance I, et al. Adjustable transobturator male system after failed surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence: a feasibility study. Urol Int. 2018;101:106-113.
Mühlstädt S, Friedl A, Mohammed N, et al. Five-year experience with the adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: a single-center evaluation. World J Urol. 2017;35:145-151.
Mühlstädt S, Friedl A, Zachoval R, et al. An overview of the ATOMS generations: port types, functionality and risk factors. World J Urol. 2019;37:1679-1686.
Schönburg S, Bauer W, Mohammed N, Brössner C, Fornara P. De novo OAB after ATOMS: an underestimated problem or a rare side effect? Front Surg. 2019 Dec 17;6:72.
Friedl A, Mühlstädt S, Rom M, et al. Risk factors for treatment failure with the adjustable transobturator male system incontinence device: who will succeed, who will fail? Results of a multicenter study. Urology. 2016;90:189-194.
Suh YS, Ko KJ, Kim TH, Sung HH, Lee KS. Long-term outcomes of primary implantation and revisions of artificial urinary sphincter in men with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:1930-1937.
Yafi FA, DeLay KJ, Stewart C, Chiang J, Sangkum P, Hellstrom WJ. Device survival after primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2017;197(3 pt 1):759-765.
Boswell TC, Elliott DS, Rangel LJ, Linder BJ. Long-term device survival and quality of life outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9:56-61.
Tutolo M, Cornu JN, Bauer RM, et al. Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:710-718.
Linder BJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Evaluating success rates after artificial urinary sphincter placement: a comparison of clinical definitions. Urology. 2018;113:220-224.
Van der Aa F1, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN. Young Academic Urologists Functional Urology Group. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013;63:681-689.
Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes among primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter implantations in men with stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2016;196:838-843.
Kaiho Y, Masuda H, Takei M, et al. Surgical and patient reported outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Urol. 2018;199:245-250.