Artificial urinary sphincter significantly better than fixed sling for moderate post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a propensity score-matched study.
#Incontinence
artificial urinary sphincter
male incontinence
male sling
propensity score
radical prostatectomy
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
4
8
2020
medline:
27
4
2021
entrez:
4
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare the efficacy of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) vs retrourethral transobturator sling (RTS) in men with moderate post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) using propensity score-matching analysis to enhance the validity of the comparison (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Consecutive men with moderate (3-5 pads/day) stress-prevalent PPI were included if implanted with a RTS (TiLOOP Of 109 included patients, 70 patients were matched and the study groups were well balanced for the baseline matched variables. The median baseline 24-h pad usage was four in both groups (P = 0.10), and median follow-up was 51.2 months for AUS and 47.2 months (P = 0.5) for RTS patients. In the AUS and RTS cohorts, respectively, 33 (94.3%) and 24 (68.6%) patients achieved the primary outcome (P < 0.001), the 0-1 pad/day rates was 94.3% vs 68.6% (P = 0.012) at 12 months, and 91.4% vs 68.6% (P = 0.034) at last follow-up. At the last follow-up, the median 24-h leakage volumes, median ICIQ-SF scores and satisfaction rates were 0 vs 15 mL (P = 0.017), 4 vs 10 (P = 0.001), and 94.3% vs 68.6% (P = 0.012) in the AUS and RTS cohorts, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall rates of complications and re-interventions, although Clavien-Dindo Grade III complications (n = 3) occurred only in the AUS group. At sensitivity analysis, the study was reasonably robust to hidden bias. We found that AUS implantation significantly outperformed RTS in patients with moderate PPI for both subjective and objective outcomes.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
229-237Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors BJU International © 2020 BJU International Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Sacco E, Prayer-Galetti T, Pinto F et al. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up. BJU Int 2006; 97: 1234-41
Burkhard FC, Bosch JL, Cruz Fet al.European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines on Urinary Incontinence. Available at: http://uroweb.org/guideline/urinary-incontinence/#4_3. Accessed May 2020.
Van der Aa F, Drake JM, Kasyan RG, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN. 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: 681-9
Rehder P, Gozzi C. Transobturator sling suspension for male urinary incontinence including post-radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 860-7
Bauer RM, Bastian PJ, Gozzi C, Stief CG. Postprostatectomy incontinence: all about diagnosis and management. Eur Urol 2009; 55: 322-33
Bientinesi R, Recupero SM, Palermo G, D’Agostino D, Bassi PF, Sacco E. Surgery for male urinary incontinence: where are we now and what is in the pipeline? Urologia 2015; 82: 139-50
Scheidbach H, Tamme C, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F. In vivo studies comparing the biocompatibility of various polypropylene meshes and their handling properties during endoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) patchplasty: an experimental study in pigs. Surg Endosc 2004; 18: 211-20
Scheidbach H, Tannapfel A, Schmidt U, Lippert H, Köckerling F. Influence of titanium coating on the biocompatibility of a heavyweight polypropylene mesh: an animal experimental model. Eur Surg Res 2004; 36: 313-7
Cornu JN, Sebe P, Ciofu C, Peyrat L, Cussenot O, Haab F. Mid-term evaluation of the transobturator male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: focus on prognostic factors. BJU Int 2011; 108: 236-40
Rehder P, Haab F, Cornu JN, Gozzi C, Bauer RM. Treatment of postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence with the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling suspension: 3-year follow-up. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 140-5
Collado Serra A, Resel Folkersma L, Domínguez-Escrig JL, Gómez-Ferrer A, Rubio-Briones J, Solsona Narbon E. AdVance/AdVance XP transobturator male slings: preoperative degree of incontinence as predictor of surgical outcome. Urology 2013; 81: 1034-9
Sacco E, Gandi C, Vaccarella L et al. Titanized transobturator sling placement for male stress urinary incontinence using an inside-out single-incision technique: minimum 12-months follow-up study. Urology 2018; 115: 144-50
Leruth J, Waltregny D, de Leval J. The inside-out transobturator male sling for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: midterm results of a single-center prospective study. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 608-15
Silva LA, Andriolo RB, Atallah ÁN, da Silva EM. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 27: CD008306
Bauer RM, Soljanik I, Füllhase C et al. Mid-term results for the retroluminar transobturator sling suspension for stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. BJU Int 2011; 108: 94-8
Cornu JN, Sèbe P, Ciofu C et al. The AdVance transobturator male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: clinical results of a prospective evaluation after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Eur Urol 56; 923-7
Hajebrahimi S, Corcos J, Lemieux MC. International consultation on incontinence questionnaire short form: comparison of physician versus patient completion and immediate and delayed self-administration. Urology 2004; 63: 1076-8
Bauer RM, Gozzi C, Roosen A et al. Impact of the “repositioning test” on postoperative outcome of retroluminar transobturator male sling implantation. Urol Int 2013; 90: 334-8
Hüsch T, Kretschmer A, Thomsen F et al. The TiLOOP® male sling: did we forejudge. Urol Int 2018; 100: 216-21
Stoffel JT, Barrett DM. The artificial genitourinary sphincter. BJU Int 2008; 102: 644-58
Austin PC. An Introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 2011; 46: 399-424
Austin PC, Grootendorst P, Anderson GM. A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 2007; 26: 734-53
Yalcin I, Bump RC. Validation of two global impression questionnaires for incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 98-101
Cartwright R, Brown H, Rizk D. Patient reported outcome measures after incontinence and prolapse surgery: are the pictures painted by the ICIQ and PGI-I accurate? Int Urogynecol J 2016; 27: 507-8
Nitti VW. Editorial comment. Urology 2011; 77: 479
Dindo D, Demartines M, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004; 240: 205-13
Linder BJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Evaluating success rates after artificial urinary sphincter placement: a comparison of clinical definitions. Urology 2018; 113: 220-4
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
Kahlon B, Baverstock RJ, Carlson KV. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter. Can Urol Assoc J 2011; 5: 268-72
Li H, Gill BC, Nowacki AS et al. Therapeutic durability of the male transobturator sling: midterm patient reported outcomes. J Urol 2012; 187: 1331-5
Gill BC, Swartz MA, Klein JB et al. Patient perceived effectiveness of a new male sling as treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 2010; 183: 247-52
Suskind AM, Bernstein B, Murphy-Setzko M. Patient-perceived outcomes of the AdVance sling up to 40 months post procedure. Neurourol Urodyn 2011; 30: 1267-70
Papachristos A, Mann S, Talbot K, Moon D. AdVance male urethral sling: medium-term results in an Australian cohort. ANZ J Surg 2018; 88: E178-82
Ho DE, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Polit Anal 2007; 15: 199-236
Normand ST, Landrum MB, Guadagnoli E. Validating recommendations for coronary angiography following an acute myocardial infarction in the elderly: a matched analysis using propensity scores. J Clinical Epidemiol 2001; 54: 387-98
Austin PC. The performance of different propensity-score methods for estimating relative risks. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 537-45
Rosenbaum PR. Observational Studies. 2. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 2002.
Hoy NY, Rourke KF. Stemming the tide of mild to moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence: a retrospective comparison of transobturator male slings and the artificial urinary sphincter. Can Urol Assoc J 2014; 8: 273-7
Khouri RK Jr, Ortiz NM, Baumgarten AS et al. Artificial urinary sphincter outperforms sling for moderate male stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2020; 141: 168-72
James MH, McCammon KA. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a review. Int J Urol 2014; 21: 536-43
Kumar A, Litt ER, Ballert KN, Nitti VW. Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence-what do patients choose? J Urol 2009; 181: 1231-5
Sacco E, Bientinesi R, Gandi C et al. Patient pad count is a poor measure of urinary incontinence compared with 48-h pad test: results of a large-scale multicentre study. BJU Int 2019; 123: E69-78