ATOMS (Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System) in Patients with Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence and Previously Treated Urethral Stricture or Bladder Neck Contracture.
adjustable trans-obturator male system
artificial urinary sphincter
fixed male sling
sling failure
stress urinary incontinence
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Aug 2022
19 Aug 2022
Historique:
received:
02
07
2022
revised:
09
08
2022
accepted:
16
08
2022
entrez:
26
8
2022
pubmed:
27
8
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
(1) Background: Male stress incontinence in patients with previously treated urethral or bladder neck stricture is a therapeutic challenge. The efficacy and safety of the adjustable trans-obturator male system (ATOMS) in these patients is unknown. (2) Methods: All patients with primary ATOMS implants in our institution between 2014 and 2021 were included. The outcomes of patients with previously treated urethral or bladder neck stricture (≥6 months before ATOMS implant) and stable 16Ch urethral caliber were compared to those without a history of stricture. The primary endpoint was the dry patient rate, defined as the pad test ≤ 20 mL/day, and complication rate, including device removal. The secondary variable was self-perceived satisfaction using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher’s exact test and logistic regression were performed. (3) Results: One hundred and forty-nine consecutive patients were included, twenty-one (14%) previously treated for urethral or bladder neck stricture (seven urethroplasty, nine internal urethrotomy and five bladder neck incision). After ATOMS adjustment, 38% of the patients with treated stricture were continent compared to 83% of those without (p < 0.0001). After weighted matched observations using propensity score pairing, the proportion of continent patients without a previous stricture was 56% (p = 0.236). Complications occurred in 29% of the patients with stricture and in 20% of those without (p = 0.34). The severity of the complications was distributed evenly among the groups (p = 0.42). Regarding self-perceived satisfaction with the implant, 90% of the patients with stricture perceived the results satisfactorily (PGI-I 1−3) compared to 97% of the rest (p = 0.167). Stricture was associated with radiotherapy (p < 0.0001) and time from prostatectomy to implantation (p = 0.012). There was a moderate correlation between previous stricture and the severity of incontinence, both evaluated according to the 24-h pad test (Rho = 0.378; p < 0.0001) and the ICIQ-SF questionnaire (Rho = 0.351; p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis for the factors predictive of failure after ATOMS adjustment revealed previous stricture (OR 4.66; 95% CI 1.2−18.87), baseline 24-h pad test (per 100 mL, OR 1.28; 95% CI 1.09−1.52) and final cushion volume (per mL, OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.19−1.55). This model predicted dryness with an AUC of 92%. After the PSMATCH procedure using a propensity score, the model remained unchanged, with the previous stricture (OR 8.05; 95% CI 1.08−110.83), baseline 24-h pad test (per 100 mL, OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.15−2.26) and final cushion volume (per mL, OR 1.45; 95% CI 1.17−2) being independent predictors and an AUC of 93%. (4) Conclusions: ATOMS can be used to treat male stress incontinence in patients with a history of stricture, although the effectiveness of the device is reduced. On the other hand, the security and perceived satisfaction were equivalent for both groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36013121
pii: jcm11164882
doi: 10.3390/jcm11164882
pmc: PMC9410097
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Adv Ther. 2017 May;34(5):1173-1183
pubmed: 28405960
World J Urol. 2019 Apr;37(4):647-653
pubmed: 30656494
Can Urol Assoc J. 2022 May;16(5):E256-E260
pubmed: 34941490
Urol Clin North Am. 2017 Feb;44(1):93-103
pubmed: 27908376
Urology. 2008 Oct;72(4):825-7
pubmed: 18752838
Urol Int. 2018;101(1):106-113
pubmed: 29953998
J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):951-5
pubmed: 22264456
Urology. 2015 Sep;86(3):618-24
pubmed: 26135812
J Urol. 2014 Dec;192(6):1756-61
pubmed: 25014577
Urology. 2014 Oct;84(4):934-8
pubmed: 25109562
Neurourol Urodyn. 2020 Aug;39(6):1737-1745
pubmed: 32496606
World J Urol. 2021 Dec;39(12):4449-4457
pubmed: 34272596
J Urol. 2015 Dec;194(6):1692-6
pubmed: 26141851
Adv Ther. 2021 Jan;38(1):678-690
pubmed: 33230712
J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):956-61
pubmed: 22264469
J Pers Med. 2022 Jan 12;12(1):
pubmed: 35055409
J Urol. 2019 Nov;202(5):1022-1028
pubmed: 31251715
Urology. 2021 Feb;148:280-286
pubmed: 33181122
J Clin Med. 2021 Dec 24;11(1):
pubmed: 35011821
Adv Ther. 2019 Feb;36(2):426-441
pubmed: 30560525
Neurourol Urodyn. 2021 Mar;40(3):897-909
pubmed: 33645867
Neurourol Urodyn. 2022 Feb;41(2):609-615
pubmed: 34969148
World J Urol. 2020 Jan;38(1):183-191
pubmed: 30980093
BJU Int. 2017 May;119(5):785-792
pubmed: 27868328
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Apr;37(4):1458-1466
pubmed: 29315765