PD01-04 CAN FILLING PHASE URODYNAMIC PARAMETERS PREDICT THE SUCCESS OF THE BULBAR ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER IN TREATING POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE?

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction/Female Pelvic Medicine: Incontinence: Evaluation (Urodynamic Testing)1 Apr 2016PD01-04 CAN FILLING PHASE URODYNAMIC PARAMETERS PREDICT THE SUCCESS OF THE BULBAR ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER IN TREATING POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE? Eskinder Solomon, Rajan Veeratterapillay, Christopher Harding, and Tamsin Greenwell Eskinder SolomonEskinder Solomon More articles by this author , Rajan VeeratterapillayRajan Veeratterapillay More articles by this author , Christopher HardingChristopher Harding More articles by this author , and Tamsin GreenwellTamsin Greenwell More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2024AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES To evaluate whether filling phase urodynamic parameters can predict the success of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in treating post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). METHODS We reviewed the pre AUS urodynamics of 99 patients with PPI at two tertiary referral centres. We documented whether detrusor overactivity (DO) was demonstrated and quantified the peak DO pressure (PDO), capacity and compliance (C). We defined success as patient reported continence or only using one safety pad. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann Whitney U, Chi square and binary logistic regression analyses. RESULTS 68‰ of patients had a successful outcome. The mean compliance for the ′success′ and ′failure′ group was 112.3ml/cmH2O (± 119.7) and 34.1ml/cmH2O (± 36.2) respectively. 55‰ of patients in the ′failure′ group demonstrated DO (PDO=36.2+18.2cmH20). In the success group, only 15% of patients had DO (PDO=15.6+6.3cmH2O). The differences between the two groups in terms of presence of DO, PDO and compliance were statistically significant (all p <0.01). There was however no statistical difference between the mean cystometric capacities of patients in the two outcome groups. 13/18 (72%) patients that had radiotherapy had a poor outcome. In contrast, only 9 (15%) patients in the ′success′ group had received radiotherapy. These results were used to develop a nomogram for the probability of AUS success. Figure 1: A nomogram representing the probability of AUS success based on the compliance index C value and PDO. As indicated by the colour bar on the right, the probability of success can be deduced to range from <10% to >90% for a pair of C and PDO values. CONCLUSIONS Compliance and PDO are predictors of outcome following AUS implantation for PPI. We have developed a nomogram that may be used to determine an individualised likelihood of AUS success using the compliance index and PDO from the pre-AUS urodynamics. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e46-e47 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Eskinder Solomon More articles by this author Rajan Veeratterapillay More articles by this author Christopher Harding More articles by this author Tamsin Greenwell More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...