Primary Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation Research Articles

Prevalence and risk factors for overactive bladder symptoms in patients with artificial urinary sphincter

To demonstrate the prevalence and risk factors for overactive bladder symptoms associated with artificial urinary sphincter implantation, we investigated the patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation with severe urinary stress incontinence. Forty-eight patients who completely answered the questionnaires of the overactive bladder symptom score before surgery were included. Patient characteristics, urinary status at pre and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-device activation, and predictive factors for overactive bladder symptoms were examined. Sixty percent of the patients had preoperative overactive bladder symptoms. Until 12 months after device activation, 35–40% of all patients had overactive bladder symptoms. The rate of persistent and de novo postoperative overactive bladder symptoms was 44.8% and 26.3%, respectively. Daily pad use was not different between patients w/wo overactive bladder symptoms. The only risk factor for postoperative overactive bladder symptoms was a max cystometoric capacity < 200 mL measured by a preoperative urodynamic study. Attention must be given to both persistent and de novo overactive bladder symptoms associated with artificial urinary sphincter implantation for patients with stress incontinence. Counsel should equally be provided for preoperative overactive bladder symptoms, especially in cases with a cystometric capacity < 200 mL.

MP78-20 EFFECT OF HYPOGONADISM ON OUTCOMES FOLLOWING ARTIFICIAL URETHRAL SPHINCTER IMPLANTATION

You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP78-20 EFFECT OF HYPOGONADISM ON OUTCOMES FOLLOWING ARTIFICIAL URETHRAL SPHINCTER IMPLANTATION Zachary Pfeifer, Rano Matta, Joshua Horns, Nathan Driggs, Benjamin McCormick, James Hotaling, Kevin Hebert, and Jeremy Myers Zachary PfeiferZachary Pfeifer More articles by this author , Rano MattaRano Matta More articles by this author , Joshua HornsJoshua Horns More articles by this author , Nathan DriggsNathan Driggs More articles by this author , Benjamin McCormickBenjamin McCormick More articles by this author , James HotalingJames Hotaling More articles by this author , Kevin HebertKevin Hebert More articles by this author , and Jeremy MyersJeremy Myers More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003355.20AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has been the gold standard management in male stress urinary incontinence for the last 50 years. The most common complications requiring re-intervention include infection and erosion. Risk of late revision surgery or device removal range from 20-50%. Hypogonadism has been shown to impair wound healing and has been hypothesized to impact AUS device survival. Thus we sought to assess the incidence of AUS revision or removal in the setting of hypogonadism. METHODS: Using IBM MarketScan, a commercial claims database, patients undergoing AUS were identified using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and ICD-10 procedure codes between 2008 and 2017. ICD-9/10 codes were used to identify patients with pre-operative diagnoses of hypogonadism. National drug codes (NDCs) and J-Codes were used to identify patients undergoing androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) or testosterone replacement therapy (TRT). Incident rate ratios (IRR) were assessed using a multivariate model to determine association of hypogonadism with AUS revision and/or explantation. RESULTS: A total of 2740 men were identified that underwent primary AUS implantation of which 2228 had no prior history of hypogonadism or ADT therapy and were considered eugonadal. 512 (18.7%) men were hypogonadal or receiving TRT including active ADT 369 (13.5%) men, 92 (3.4%) hypogonadal without TRT, and 51 (1.9%) active TRT. On multivariate analysis, untreated hypogonadism (IRR 1.56; 95% CI [1.0-2.3]) was associated with an increased likelihood of re-operation when controlling for covariates. Active ADT (IRR 0.91; 95% CI [0.72-1.14]) and hypogonadism with active TRT (IRR 1.147; 95% CI [0.55-2.10] were not associated with increased risk of reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of 2740 patients undergoing primary AUS placement, untreated hypogonadism was associated with an increased likelihood of re-operation. TRT and ADT at the time of AUS surgery were not associated with increased rates of reoperation. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e1139 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Zachary Pfeifer More articles by this author Rano Matta More articles by this author Joshua Horns More articles by this author Nathan Driggs More articles by this author Benjamin McCormick More articles by this author James Hotaling More articles by this author Kevin Hebert More articles by this author Jeremy Myers More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

Peri-operative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis.

To evaluate differences in perioperative clinical outcomes in men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in primary versus replacement settings. Secondarily, we aimed to identify patient-related factors contributing to complications associated with AUS placement. A review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed between 2010 and 2018 identifying males undergoing AUS implantation. Subjects were further subdivided into primary implantation or removal/replacement of AUS simultaneously via current procedural terminology codes 53445 and 53447, respectively. 30-Day postoperative outcomes were compared between cohorts using t-test and Fisher's exact test. The relationship between patient factors and complications was evaluated using logistic regression. A total of 1,892 patients were identified: 1,445 primary AUS placement and 447 AUS replacement procedures. Patients undergoing AUS replacement were statistically older than those undergoing primary implantation (71.4 vs 69.7 years, P < .001). AUS replacement procedures were associated with an increased rate of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) compared to primary procedures (1.3% vs 0.4%, P ¼ .042). There were no differences identified between cohorts for deep SSI, cardiopulmonary complications, reoperation, operative time, or length of stay. Logistic regression demonstrated that higher body mass index was found to be independent risk factors for any complications, and diabetes mellitus was associated with increased risk of AUS-related readmission. Within the perioperative period, patients undergoing replacement AUS have an increased risk of superficial SSI compared to primary AUS implantation. These findings can assist with appropriate perioperative counseling of patients undergoing primary and replacement AUS implantations.

Early Revision after Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation Does Not Impair the Long-Term Treatment Success

Introduction: After implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) due to stress urinary incontinence, in some cases revision procedures may be necessary. This is mostly due to device infection or cuff erosion in the long term. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of early revision procedures (prior to or immediately after AUS activation) on the long-term outcome. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent primary AUS implantation between 2006 and 2019. Patients with previous radiotherapy, urethroplasty, urethral stent placement, or repeat AUS implantation were excluded. Early revision was defined as prior to or immediately after AUS activation and comprised pump repositioning or cuff size adaptation due to difficulties in using the pump, persistent urinary incontinence, or urinary retention. Patients were compared with regard to complication rates, functional outcome, and patient satisfaction. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze risk factors for early AUS revision. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated explantation-free survival. Results: A total of 250 patients were included. Twenty patients (8%) required early revision (pump repositioning in 15 cases [75%], cuff downsizing in 3 cases [15%], and cuff upsizing in 2 cases [10%]). Mean follow-up was 78.6 months. 96.4% of all patients were objectively continent at the time of last follow-up without differences between both groups, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. No differences with regard to mechanical implant failure, tissue atrophy, and AUS explantation due to cuff erosion or implant infection were observed. Explantation-free survival was comparable in both groups. On univariable logistic regression analysis, coronary artery disease and transcorporal cuff placement were associated with early AUS revision. Conclusion: Early revision after AUS implantation can be performed without negative impact on the long-term outcome.

Impact of previous urethroplasty on the outcome after artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a prospective evaluation.

To evaluate the impact of previous urethroplasty on complication rates and postoperative continence after primary artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in male patients with severe stress urinary incontinence. A prospective evaluation of patients undergoing primary AUS implantation was conducted. Patients with previous radiotherapy, AUS implantation or urethral stent placement were excluded. Main endpoints were postoperative continence and complication rates including necessity of AUS explantation. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated explantation-free survival. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify potential predictors for AUS explantation. 105 patients were included with a mean follow-up of 76.6months (SD 15.9). 30 of these patients had a history of urethroplasty. Postoperatively, 96.2% of all patients were objectively continent (≤ 1 pad/day). No differences in postoperative continence and early complication rates were observed. Concerning long-term complications, infection, mechanical implant failure, and tissue atrophy were also comparable. Overall sphincter erosion rate was 12.3%, but significantly higher in urethroplasty patients (23.3% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.038) and sphincter explantation rate was threefold higher (p = 0.016) in the urethroplasty group. Furthermore, explantation-free survival was reduced compared to the non-urethroplasty group (p = 0.044). On logistic regression analysis, the previous urethroplasty was the only significant predictor for AUS explantation (p = 0.016). AUS implantation in patients with former urethroplasty can provide satisfying results. Compared to patients without the previous urethroplasty, the higher risk of cuff erosion and AUS explantation has to be addressed during preoperative consultation. Patients with the previous urethroplasty with grafting, long strictures and previous visual internal urethrotomy might be at highest risk.

Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): Results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up.

To assess efficacy and safety as well as predictive factors of dry rate and freedom from surgical revision in patients underwent AUS placement. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still considered the standard for the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, data reporting efficacy and safety from large series are lacking. A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 16 centers in Europe and USA. Only primary cases of AUS implantation in non-neurogenic SUI after prostate surgery, with a follow-up of at least 1 year were included. Efficacy data (continence rate, based on pad usage) and safety data (revision rate in case of infection and erosion, as well as atrophy or mechanical failure) were collected. Multivariable analyses were performed in order to investigate possible predictors of the aforementioned outcomes. Eight hundred ninety-two men had primary AUS implantation. At 32 months mean follow-up overall dry rate and surgical revision were 58% and 30.7%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients without previous incontinence surgery had a higher probability to be dry after AUS implantation (OR: 0.51, P = 0.03). Moreover institutional case-load was positively associated with dry rate (OR: 1.18; P = 0.005) and freedom from revision (OR: 1.51; P = 0.00). The results of this study showed that AUS is an effective option for the treatment of SUI after prostate surgery. Moreover previous incontinence surgery and low institutional case-load are negatively associated to efficacy and safety outcomes.

Do the etiological factors in artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation cases affect success and complications?

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still one of the best options for incontinence treatment. It may also have an advantage for revision or reimplantation in the management of complications. In this study we aimed to discuss the etiological factors for AUS reimplantation and effects of these etiological factors on success rates, patient satisfaction rates, time to reimplantation surgery, and complications Data from 30 patients for whom AUS reimplantation was performed were analyzed retrospectively. Incontinence due to fluid loss from the cuff or reservoir balloon, inability of the cuff to adequately compress the urethra, and devices that were thought to have completed their lifespans were defined as mechanical reasons while incontinence caused by conditions such as cuff erosion and infection were defined as nonmechanical reasons. Patients who went through reimplantation due to mechanical and nonmechanical causes were included in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Success rates, patient satisfaction rates, time between the implantation of the first and second AUS, and complications were compared between the groups. The mean follow-up period was 79 (3–308) months for patients who went through primary AUS implantation due to postprostatectomy incontinence. Our success rates were found as 75% and 66% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. The differences between the groups in terms of success and patient satisfaction rates were not statistically significant, while the time to reimplantation was longer in Group 1 and statistically significant. Reasons for AUS reimplantation may affect the success and patient satisfaction rates. Our success rates of AUS performed for nonmechanical reasons were slightly lower, but not statistically significantly so. AUS reimplantation may take a longer time if mechanical failure is detected.

Evaluating Success Rates After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: A Comparison of Clinical Definitions

To assess success rates of primary artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation using various objective, subjective, or retreatment definitions. We identified 309 male patients who underwent primary AUS placement at the Mayo Clinic from 2010 to 2016. Of those, 214 had not undergone repeat surgery, were sent a mailed survey, and 148 of 214 (69.2%) responded. Eleven definitions of success were evaluated among responders. Associations between the definitions and patient-reported success were assessed via logistic regression and c-statistic. Treatment success rates were highly variable depending on the definition used (14.8%-86.7%). Median follow-up was 24 months (interquartile range [IQR] 8, 40), during which 72% did not undergo reoperation. Among survey respondents, 87% felt at least "much better," and 47% reported surgery was "very successful." Roughly 15% reported zero pad use. Patient-reported success was most strongly associated with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score (odds ratio [OR] 0.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.19; P <.0001; c = 0.88). The largest difference in Michigan Incontinence Symptom Index (M-ISI) score between treatment successes and failures was noted when success was defined by PGI-I as well (success group M-ISI 11 vs failure group M-ISI 24.15; OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.37-0.63; P <.0001; c = 0.97). In terms of pad count, use of a security pad or less was most closely associated with patient-reported success (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.10-0.35; P <.0001; c = 0.75). The "success rate" after primary AUS implantation varies widely depending on the definition used. Although most patients report that surgery was beneficial, zero pad count was less common. Among definitions evaluated, the PGI-I had the strongest association with patients' evaluation of surgical success.

MP46-12 EFFECTS OF PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS ON FAVORABLE OUTCOMES AFTER PRIMARY ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER IMPLANTATION FOR MALE NON-NEUROGENIC STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE

MP46-12 EFFECTS OF PERIOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS ON FAVORABLE OUTCOMES AFTER PRIMARY ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER IMPLANTATION FOR MALE NON-NEUROGENIC STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE

434 - Effects of perioperative complications on favorable outcomes after primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation: Results from a European multi-centre study

434 - Effects of perioperative complications on favorable outcomes after primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation: Results from a European multi-centre study

Long-term outcomes of primary implantation and revisions of artificial urinary sphincter in men with stress urinary incontinence.

To evaluate long-term outcomes of primary implantation and revisions of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The medical records of 155 consecutive patients who underwent AMS 800™ implantation from 2003 to 2015 were reviewed. Treatment success (TS) was defined as no need for pads, and social continence (SC) was defined as a need for pad ≤1/day at last follow-up. The efficacy, complication rates, and associated risk factors with reoperation and durability of primary AUS implantation, as well as treatment outcomes following AUS revision were evaluated. The median age was 69.0 years (range 27-85), and median follow-up was 45.1 months (range 9-126). The rates of TS and SC were 63.2% and 84.5%, respectively. The reoperation rate of AUS was 26.4%. Non-mechanical failure (70.7%) was a dominant etiology of reoperation. The 5-year device survival rate without reoperation was 67.0%. The immediate TS rates of primary AUS without reoperation (pAUS) and AUS revision without secondary reoperation (rAUS) groups were 88.6% and 79.2% (P = 0.352), respectively. At last follow-up, the SC rate was higher in patients with pAUS (92.1%) than with rAUS (62.5%) (P = 0.001). Although there are appreciable rates of reoperation, the AMS 800™ offers high rates of continence in men with SUI. The immediate TS rate was comparable in patients with pAUS and rAUS. At the final follow-up, however, the SC rate was significantly higher in patients with pAUS than with rAUS.

Device Survival after Primary Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence

The AMS 800™ artificial urinary sphincter remains the gold standard for the surgical management of male stress urinary incontinence. We reviewed artificial urinary sphincter device survival after primary implantation. Retrospective data were collected from the AMS 800 patient information form database. Since 1972, 77,512 patient information forms for primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation have been completed in the United States. Following exclusion of procedures performed in children and females, and those labeled with an unknown surgical technique, 27,096 artificial urinary sphincter cases were included in the analysis. Collected variables included patient age, surgical approach, number of cuffs and surgeon volume. Measured outcomes included device explantation, device revision, component revision and time to each event. Artificial urinary sphincter insertion was performed by low volume implanters in 22,165 (82.6%) cases. The approach was perineal in 18,373 cases (67.8%) and a tandem cuff was used in 2,224 cases (8.2%). Overall 5,723 cases required revision or explantation (21.1%). Younger age and penoscrotal approach were associated with higher device explantation and revision rates, while the use of a tandem cuff was associated with higher explantation rates. On multivariate analysis younger age, penoscrotal approach and use of a tandem cuff but not surgeon volume were significant factors associated with device explantation and component revision. These data provide a general overview of artificial urinary sphincter device survival and may serve urologists when counseling patients. Younger age, penoscrotal approach and use of a tandem cuff may be associated with inferior outcomes.

Long-term Outcomes Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: An Analysis of 1082 Cases at Mayo Clinic

To evaluate long-term device outcomes following primary artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation. We identified 1802 male patients with stress urinary incontinence that underwent AUS placement from 1983 to 2011. Of these, 1082 (60%) were involving primary implantations and comprise the study cohort. Multiple clinical and surgical variables were evaluated for potential association with treatment failure, defined as any secondary surgery. Patient follow-up was obtained through office examination, operative report, and written or telephone correspondence. Patients undergoing AUS implantation had a median age of 71 years (interquartile range 66-76) and median follow-up of 4.1 years (interquartile range 0.8-7.7). Overall, 338 of 1082 patients (31.2%) underwent secondary surgery, including 89 for device infection and/or erosion, 131 for device malfunction, 89 for urethral atrophy, and 29 for pump malposition or tubing complications. No patient-related risk factors were independently associated with an increased risk of secondary surgery on multivariable analysis. Secondary surgery-free survival was 90% at 1 year, 74% at 5 years, 57% at 10 years, and 41% at 15 years. Primary AUS implantation is associated with acceptable long-term outcomes. Recognition of long-term success is important for preoperative patient counseling.

Long-term Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcomes Following a Prior Rectourethral Fistula Repair

To determine the long-term outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation following a successful rectourethral fistula (RUF) repair. Between January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2012, a total of 26 patients underwent successful repair of an RUF. Stress urinary incontinence was treated in 6 patients (23%) with implantation of an AUS. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included demographic variables, voiding diaries, 24-hour pad weight, urodynamic characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss, complication rates, follow-up time, and cuff selection. All 6 patients underwent successful RUF repair using a perineal approach. Mean age was 64.3 years (range 58-74). Mean follow-up after repair was 51.5 months (range 34-64). RUF etiology included radical prostatectomy (4), brachytherapy + external beam radiotherapy (1), and cryotherapy + external beam radiotherapy (1). The median time between RUF repair and AUS placement was 12 months (range 2-41). No intraoperative complications occurred during AUS implantation. The average operative time was 61.8 minutes with an estimated blood loss of 24 mL. The initial cuff size selected was 4.0 or 4.5 cm, and no patient required transcorporal cuff placement. Pad use was reported as ≤1 pad per day in all 6 patients at the initial 3-month follow-up. Median follow-up after AUS placement was 43.5 months (5-55). No patient required revision or removal for mechanical complications, infection, or erosion. No patient had recurrence of their previously repaired RUF or new-onset fecal incontinence. Patients who require placement of an AUS after an RUF repair seem to fare just as well as patients who undergo primary AUS implantation with no increased rate of complications postoperatively.

MP88-19 POST-OPERATIVE ANTIBIOTICS AFTER PRIMARY ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER PLACEMENT DO NOT REDUCE INFECTION OR EROSION RATES

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Male Incontinence: Therapy1 Apr 2015MP88-19 POST-OPERATIVE ANTIBIOTICS AFTER PRIMARY ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER PLACEMENT DO NOT REDUCE INFECTION OR EROSION RATES J. Patrick Selph, Michael Belsante, Divya Ajay, Aaron Lentz, George Webster, Ngoc-Bich Le, and Andrew Peterson J. Patrick SelphJ. Patrick Selph More articles by this author , Michael BelsanteMichael Belsante More articles by this author , Divya AjayDivya Ajay More articles by this author , Aaron LentzAaron Lentz More articles by this author , George WebsterGeorge Webster More articles by this author , Ngoc-Bich LeNgoc-Bich Le More articles by this author , and Andrew PetersonAndrew Peterson More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1852AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is considered the gold standard surgical treatment for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence. Feared complications of placement include infection and erosion, with reported rates of 0.5-10.6% and 2.9-12%, respectively. While no guidelines or data exist to support the practice, one study showed that 94% of surgeons send patients home with oral antibiotics after penile prosthesis placement. We postulate that a similar practice exists after AUS placement. We sought to determine if giving post-operative antibiotics at the time of discharge would reduce infection rates in patients undergoing primary AUS placement. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed all patients undergoing AUS placement from 2007 to 2012 at our institution by three surgeons. Two surgeons routinely gave postoperative antibiotics, while a third did not. We included only patients undergoing primary AUS implantation with an Inhibizone-coated device who developed an infection and/or erosion at any time after placement. Exclusion criteria included revision surgery, prior urethral erosion, or device infection or erosion after urethral instrumentation or trauma. Patient records were assessed for postoperative antibiotic prescriptions and device infection or erosion. Statistical analysis of categorical variables was performed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS 223 patients met inclusion criteria. 159 patients were given antibiotics at discharge, and 65 received no discharge antibiotics. Mean follow-up of the entire group was 17.1 months. There was no significant difference between the two groups in body mass index, presence of a urethral stent, smoking status, radiation history, or presence of diabetes. 6/159 (3.8%) and 1/64 (1.5%) of the antibiotic group and non-antibiotic group developed an infection and/or erosion, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in infection and/or erosion rates between antibiotic and non-antibiotic groups (p = 0.67). Of the seven patients who developed a device infection and/or erosion, six had prior radiation therapy. CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics given after primary Inhibizone-coated AUS placement do not appear to reduce infection rates. Given the general concern over increasing resistance to antimicrobials, this study supports the notion that patients undergoing primary Inhibizone-coated AUS placement do not require antibiotics after implantation of the AUS. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e1099 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information J. Patrick Selph More articles by this author Michael Belsante More articles by this author Divya Ajay More articles by this author Aaron Lentz More articles by this author George Webster More articles by this author Ngoc-Bich Le More articles by this author Andrew Peterson More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Perioperative Complications following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement

We evaluated perioperative complications in patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and the potential impact of these complications on device outcomes. During the 2-year period from 2012 to 2014 we retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of 197 consecutive artificial urinary sphincter implantation procedures performed at our institution for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Of these cases 100 that were primary implantations comprise the study cohort. Perioperative complications, defined as those occurring within 6 weeks postoperatively, were classified by the Clavien-Dindo classification. After office evaluation at 6 weeks patients were followed for symptoms. Patient followup was obtained through office examination and telephone correspondence. Patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation had a median age of 71.5 years (IQR 66, 76). The overall rate of any complication (Clavien I-V) within 6 weeks of surgery was 35%, including urinary retention in 31% of cases, cellulitis in 1%, device infection in 2% and urethral erosion in 2%. No significant differences in pertinent clinical comorbidities such as age (p = 0.69), hypertension (p = 0.95), coronary artery disease (p = 0.57), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.17), body mass index (p = 0.47), prior pelvic radiation therapy (p = 0.45), prior urethral sling placement (p = 0.91) or transcorporeal urethral cuff placement (p = 0.22) were found between patients with and without complications. Median followup was similar between those with and without postoperative urinary retention (p = 0.14). Postoperative urinary retention was associated with adverse 6-month device survival (76% vs 89%, p = 0.04). The most common complication of artificial urinary sphincter placement is urinary retention. Serious adverse events following artificial urinary sphincter placement are rare. Postoperative urinary retention is associated with adverse short-term device survival rates.

1004 Primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation for male non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence: Early and midterm results of a multicenter contemporary series

1004 Primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation for male non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence: Early and midterm results of a multicenter contemporary series

Outcomes Following Artificial Sphincter Implantation After Prior Unsuccessful Male Sling

Despite the proven success and durability of the artificial urinary sphincter many patients elect an AdVance® sling as the initial treatment of male stress incontinence. We determined whether sling placement would change the outcome of an ensuing artificial urinary sphincter. A total of 29 patients with stress urinary incontinence after failed sling placement were treated with an AMS 800® artificial urinary sphincter between January 2006 and May 2011. A control group of 136 men with a primary artificial urinary sphincter was used for comparison. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included demographic variables, voiding diary, 24-hour pad weight, urodynamic characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss, complication rate, followup and cuff selection. There was no statistical difference in urodynamic characteristics, operative variables or the complication rate. Pad use was reported as less than 1 pad daily in 96% of patients (28 of 29) with a secondary artificial urinary sphincter at 3-month followup. At 20.7 months 6.9% of patients (2 of 29) treated with an artificial urinary sphincter after the male sling required revision of the artificial urinary sphincter. The overall complication rate in the control group was 8.8% (12 of 136 patients) with a 2.2% infection rate (3 of 136). The overall complication rate in the artificial urinary sphincter plus male sling group was 6.9% (2 of 29 patients) with a 0% infection rate. Patients who require an artificial urinary sphincter after an initial male sling seem to fare as well as those who undergo primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

OUTCOMES FOLLOWING REVISIONS AND SECONDARY IMPLANTATION OF THE ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER

Durable success with the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is common but device revision and replacement are often needed for various reasons. We examined indications and outcomes following these secondary procedures with comparisons to outcomes after primary procedures. The medical records of all patients undergoing primary and secondary bulbar urethral AUS implantation and revision from January 1990 to September 2002 were reviewed for various demographic and surgical variables. Female patients and males with bladder neck cuffs were excluded from study. Of 554 men undergoing AUS implantation or revision 119 (21.4%) underwent a total of 159 secondary procedures. Reasons for revision were mechanical failure in 31 cases (25.2%) and nonmechanical failure in 88 (73.9%). The latter included recurrent incontinence due to urethral atrophy in 63 cases (52.9%) and erosion in 21 (17.6%). Total device replacement was performed in 75 cases (47.2%). Of 119 patients undergoing secondary implantation 91 (76.5%) needed no additional surgical intervention, while 28 (23.5%) required a total of 40 surgical revisions for new mechanical (15 or 37.5%) and nonmechanical (25 or 62.5%) problems. Five-year durability outcomes for primary and secondary AUS implantation were comparable at 80% and 88%, respectively. Similarly excellent continence outcomes (0 to 1 pad daily) were noted in 90% and 82% of patients undergoing primary and secondary AUS implantation, respectively. Secondary and tertiary AUS revisions resulted in the restoration of baseline continence in 106 cases (89%). Our study suggests that outcomes for secondary AUS reimplantation are comparable to those of primary AUS implantation and salvage of a good outcome is always probable, even following multiple prior revisions and cuff erosion.

REVISION RATE AFTER ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER IMPLANTATION FOR INCONTINENCE AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS

We determined the actuarial revision rate for artificial urinary sphincters implanted in patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy. We reviewed the records of 70 consecutive patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy and who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation at the University of Michigan between 1984 and 1999. Questionnaires were mailed to all patients with an indwelling device, and telephone calls were placed to those who did not respond to the mailing. Information about surgical revision and current continence status was obtained from chart review and questionnaire response. The Kaplan-Meier curves for actuarial freedom from operative revision were constructed. Of the 66 patients with available postoperative data 24 (36%) required reoperation at a mean followup of 41 months. The 5-year actuarial rate for freedom from any operative revision was 50%, and the corresponding rate for cuff revision was 60%. A single operative revision did not predispose the patient to further revision. Questionnaire data indicated a continence rate of 80% (range 0 to 2 pads). Approximately half of the patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy may expect to undergo operative revision within 5 years after artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Despite this high reoperation rate, an excellent level of continence is maintained.