Transcroporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement With Closure of Corporal Bodies-A Long-Term Analysis of Functional Outcomes.

AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter corporal closure reconstructive urology stress urinary transcorporal cuffs

Journal

Frontiers in surgery
ISSN: 2296-875X
Titre abrégé: Front Surg
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101645127

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2022
Historique:
received: 11 04 2022
accepted: 09 05 2022
entrez: 20 6 2022
pubmed: 21 6 2022
medline: 21 6 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

An artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for postoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The transcorporal AUS (TC) placement constitutes the main salvage option in high-risk patients suffering from SUI with fragile urethras. The literature analyzing long-term outcomes with respect to explantation rates, continence, and erectile function is scarce. Retrospective data collection was performed in 2011. TC was applied according to a standardized protocol. TC was implanted after bulbar urethroplasty or double-cuff (DC) explantation. After TC placement, the tunica albuginea was closed in order to minimize the risk of postoperative bleedings and erectile dysfunction. Activation was performed 6 weeks postoperatively. Further follow-up (FU) was scheduled 6/24 months postoperatively and every 2 years thereafter. Primary/secondary endpoints were explantation/objective, subjective, and social continence rates. Objective or social continence was defined as the use of 0 pads/day or <2 pads/day, respectively. Thereupon, postoperative bleedings and erectile function were analyzed. A total of 39 high-risk patients were available for analysis. The median age was 72 years. In total, 84.6%, 10.3%, and 2.6% had a history of radical prostatectomy, TURP, and radical cystectomy, respectively. In total, 61.5% had a history of radiation therapy of the prostate, 41% had a history of urethral surgery, and 95% had a history of double cuff explantation. The median FU was 27 months. Objective, subjective, and social continence were 54.5%, 69.7%, and 78.8%, respectively. The median pad usage was 1 pad/day [1-2.5]. Only one patient suffered from a postoperative hematoma. In total, 15.4% of the patients were able to have an erection preoperatively, compared to 7.7% after TC placement. The estimated mean explantation-free survival of the TC was 83 months in the Kaplan-Meier analysis. TC AUS implantation constitutes a viable salvage approach in high-risk SUI patients with a mean device survival of almost 7 years and high social continence rates of almost 80%. An intraoperative closure of the tunica albuginea after TC placement allows for very low rates of postoperative hematoma and supports postoperative erectile rigidity.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35722536
doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.918011
pmc: PMC9198723
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

918011

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 Maurer, Dahlem, Howaldt, Riechardt, Fisch, Ludwig and Engel.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Références

BJU Int. 2013 Dec;112(8):1163-8
pubmed: 24053170
World J Urol. 2020 Sep;38(9):2289-2294
pubmed: 31797074
BJOG. 2004 Aug;111(8):859-62
pubmed: 15270937
J Urol. 2015 Dec;194(6):1692-6
pubmed: 26141851
J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):1015-9; discussion 1019-20
pubmed: 17296400
Can Urol Assoc J. 2008 Oct;2(5):536-9
pubmed: 18953453
Int J Urol. 2012 Sep;19(9):861-6
pubmed: 22571275
Eur Urol. 2011 Mar;59(3):387-400
pubmed: 21130559
BJU Int. 2019 Dec;124(6):1040-1046
pubmed: 31351030
J Urol. 2004 Feb;171(2 Pt 1):703-7; discussion 707-8
pubmed: 14713791
Adv Urol. 2012;2012:287489
pubmed: 22649446
World J Urol. 2021 Dec;39(12):4449-4457
pubmed: 34272596
Urology. 2019 Nov;133:234-239
pubmed: 31352019
Eur Urol. 2009 May;55(5):1037-63
pubmed: 19185977
BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):625-32
pubmed: 26917355
J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):1021-5
pubmed: 17296403
Urology. 2012 Apr;79(4):922-8
pubmed: 22305763
J Urol. 2002 May;167(5):2075-8; discussion 2079
pubmed: 11956443
Can J Urol. 2013 Jun;20(3):6773-7
pubmed: 23783046
Transl Androl Urol. 2017 Aug;6(4):682-694
pubmed: 28904901

Auteurs

Valentin Maurer (V)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Urology, Asklepios Medical Center Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Roland Dahlem (R)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Marian Howaldt (M)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Urology, Asklepios Medical Center Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Silke Riechardt (S)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Margit Fisch (M)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Tim A Ludwig (TA)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Oliver Engel (O)

Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Urology, Asklepios Medical Center Hamburg-Harburg, Hamburg, Germany.

Classifications MeSH