Prior male sling does not affect outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter.
artificial urinary sphincter
male sling
male urinary incontinence
prostate cancer
radical prostatectomy
Journal
BJU international
ISSN: 1464-410X
Titre abrégé: BJU Int
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100886721
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Jan 2024
20 Jan 2024
Historique:
medline:
20
1
2024
pubmed:
20
1
2024
entrez:
20
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To investigate the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) with or without a prior male sling. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent AUS for PPUI from 2007 to 2022. The primary endpoint was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved social continence, defined as self-reported use of 0-1 pad/day. The secondary endpoints were device failure rates and device failure-free survival. The analysis included 210 patients, with 30 (14.3%) having had prior slings and 180 (85.7%) without prior slings. After AUS insertion, 80.0% of patients with prior slings and 76.7% of those without prior slings achieved continence (0-1 pad/day). There were six (20.0%) and 53 (29.4%) device failures in patients with and without prior slings, respectively. The median device failure-free survival was not reached in patients with prior slings and was 8.9 years in patients without prior slings (P = 0.048). Limitations include retrospective nature and small sample size. The efficacy and safety of AUS in patients with prior slings are similar to those without. Prior sling is associated with a longer device failure-free survival. AUS remains a viable option in patients who have persistent PPI after prior slings.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 BJU International.
Références
Prabhu V, Sivarajan G, Taksler GB, Laze J, Lepor H. Long-term continence outcomes in men undergoing radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 52-57
Castle EP, Andrews PE, Itano N, Novicki DE, Swanson SK, Ferrigni RG. The male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: mean followup of 18 months. J Urol 2005; 173: 1657-1660
Rehder P, Mitterberger MJ, Pichler R, Kerschbaumer A, Glodny B. The 1 year outcome of the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2010; 106: 1668-1672
Torrey R, Rajeshuni N, Ruel N, Muldrew S, Chan K. Radiation history affects continence outcomes after advance transobturator sling placement in patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence. Urology 2013; 82: 713-717
Zuckerman JM, Tisdale B, McCammon K. Advance male sling in irradiated patients with stress urinary incontinence. Can J Urol 2011; 18: 6013-6017
Gousse AE, Madjar S, Lambert MM, Fishman IJ. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: long-term subjective results. J Urol 2001; 166: 1755-1758
Raj GV, Peterson AC, Toh KL, Webster GD. Outcomes following revisions and secondary implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol 2005; 173: 1242-1245
Mundy AR. Artificial sphincters. Br J Urol 1991; 67: 225-229
Clemens JQ, Schuster TG, Konnak JW, McGuire EJ, Faerber GJ. Revision rate after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for incontinence after radical prostatectomy: actuarial analysis. J Urol 2001; 166: 1372-1375
Litwiller SE, Kim KB, Fone PD, White RW, Stone AR. Post-prostatectomy incontinence and the artificial urinary sphincter: a long-term study of patient satisfaction and criteria for success. J Urol 1996; 156: 1975-1980
Bailey GC, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. The impact of androgen deprivation on artificial urinary sphincter outcomes. Transl Androl Urol 2016; 5: 756-761
Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM. Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol 2008; 179: 1912-1916
Hajivassiliou CA. A review of the complications and results of implantation of the AMS artificial urinary sphincter. Eur Urol 1999; 35: 36-44
Elliott DS, Barrett DM. Mayo Clinic long-term analysis of the functional durability of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: a review of 323 cases. J Urol 1998; 159: 1206-1208
Haab F, Trockman BA, Zimmern PE, Leach GE. Quality of life and continence assessment of the artificial urinary sphincter in men with minimum 3.5 years of followup. J Urol 1997; 158: 435-439
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
Walsh IK, Williams SG, Mahendra V, Nambirajan T, Stone AR. Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient: safety, efficacy and satisfaction. BJU Int 2002; 89: 364-368
Gomha MA, Boone TB. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence in men who had prior radiotherapy: a risk and outcome analysis. J Urol 2002; 167(2 Pt 1): 591-596
Ziegelmann MJ, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Viers BR, Elliott DS. The impact of prior urethral sling on artificial urinary sphincter outcomes. Can Urol Assoc J 2016; 10: 405-409
Ziegelmann MJ, Linder BJ, Rivera ME et al. The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation. World J Urol 2020; 38: 2289-2294