Secondary Sling Implantation after Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Study

Abstract

Objective: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the surgical gold standard after previously failed surgical treatment for male urinary stress incontinence. The evidence for a male sling as salvage treatment is poor, but there is a proportion of patients that refuse implantation of an AUS or have a relative contraindication. The goal of our retrospective study was an analysis of outcome and complications of patients with a secondary sling after previously failed surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Materials and Methods: Data on 186 patients who had a prior incontinence surgery were extracted from the DOMINO database. 139 patients (74.7%) received an AUS and 41 patients (22.0%) who had received a secondary sling system between 2010 and 2012 after previously failed surgery for male urinary incontinence could be identified and were further analyzed. Results: Eight patients (19.5%) received a secondary repositioning sling and 33 patients (80.5%) received a secondary adjustable sling system. A prior surgery for urethral stricture was performed in 4 patients (9.8%). No major intraoperative complications were reported. A simultaneous explantation was performed in 12 patients (29.3%). The mean number of pad reductions was 4.93 (p = 0.026). No intraoperative complications and no postoperative surgical revisions were reported. The mean follow-up of the patient cohort with a secondary sling was 16 months. Conclusion: We provide the largest cohort of male patients up to date with a secondary sling after primary failure of surgery for male SUI. Although the procedure is a rarely performed surgery and without a high level of evidence, a secondary adjustable male sling system might be a feasible option in selected patients with acceptable complication rates, whereas a valuable outcome regarding continence rates cannot be sufficiently supplied by our data.