Advertisement

Early Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Stress Urinary Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy or Benign Prostatic Obstruction Surgery: Results of a Large Multicentric Study

Published:September 18, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.09.006

      Abstract

      Background

      Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for the management of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in the male population. While outcomes of this device in postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) are widely described, those obtained for incontinence after benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) surgery remains poorly explored.

      Objective

      To compare continence outcomes after AUS implantation in a PPI population with those obtained in men incontinent after BPO surgery.

      Design, setting, and participants

      A retrospective review of all cases of AUS implantation between 2005 and 2020 in 16 different French centers was conducted. Only patients with primary implantation whose indication was moderate to severe SUI after prostatectomy or BPO surgery were included (excluding those with a history of radiation therapy, brachytherapy, cystectomy, high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy, or neurogenic disease).

      Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

      The primary endpoint was the rate of social continence (zero or one pad per day) at 3 mo. Complications were also noted within 90 d of implantation.

      Results and limitations

      A total of 417 patients were included in the PPI group and 50 in the BPO surgery group. Social continence rates at 3 mo were similar between the groups (79% vs 72%, p = 0.701). Complication rate was significantly higher in the BPO group (8% vs 18%, p = 0.044). The same was found for the Clavien-Dindo type 2 complication rate (20.6% vs 44.4%, p = 0.026). The retrospective nature and lack of precise definition of incontinence are the main limitations of this study.

      Conclusions

      This multicentric study strengthens the position of AUS as gold standard for SUI after radical prostatectomy. Comparable efficacy results were found for incontinence after BPO surgery, with nevertheless a higher rate of complications.

      Patient summary

      Artificial urinary sphincter represents the gold standard for the treatment of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence. Efficacy results are comparable between postprostatectomy incontinence and incontinence after benign prostatic obstruction surgery.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Urology Focus
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nambiar A.K.
        • Bosch R.
        • Cruz F.
        • et al.
        EAU guidelines on assessment and nonsurgical management of urinary incontinence.
        Eur Urol. 2018; 73: 596-609
        • Brantley Scott F.
        • Bradley W.E.
        • Timm G.W.
        Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter.
        Urology. 1973; 1: 252-259
        • Leo M.E.
        • Barrett D.M.
        Success of the narrow-backed cuff design of the AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter: analysis of 144 patients.
        J Urol. 1993; 150: 1412-1414
        • Kim J.K.
        • Cho Y.S.
        • Park S.Y.
        • et al.
        Recent surgical treatments for urinary stone disease in a Korean population: national population-based study.
        Int J Urol. 2019; 26: 558-564
        • Loughlin K.R.
        • Prasad M.M.
        Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a confluence of 3 factors.
        J Urol. 2010; 183: 871-877
        • Kretschmer A.
        • Gratzke C.
        Belastungsinkontinenz nach operativer Therapie einer benignen Prostatahyperplasie: Konservative und operative Therapieoptionen.
        Akt Urol. 2018; 49: 334-338
        • Parker D.C.
        • Simhan J.
        Management of complications after surgical outlet reduction for benign prostatic obstruction.
        Can J Urol. 2015; 22: 88-92
        • Theodorou C.H.
        • Moutzouris G.
        • Floratos D.
        • Plastiras D.
        • Katsifotis C.H.
        • Mertziotis N.
        Incontinence after surgery for benign prostatic hypertrophy: the case for complex approach and treatment.
        Eur Urol. 1998; 33: 370-375
        • Haynes S.R.
        • Lawler P.G.P.
        An assessment of the consistency of ASA physical status classification allocation.
        Anaesthesia. 1995; 50: 195-199
        • Charlson M.E.
        • Pompei P.
        • Ales K.L.
        • MacKenzie C.R.
        A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.
        J Chronic Dis. 1987; 40: 373-383
        • Clavien P.A.
        • Barkun J.
        • de Oliveira M.L.
        • et al.
        The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 187-196
        • Abrams P.
        • Constable L.D.
        • Cooper D.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of a noninferiority randomised controlled trial of surgery for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER).
        Eur Urol. 2021; 79: 812-823
        • Robert G.
        • De La Taille A.
        • Descazeaud A.
        Données épidémiologiques en rapport avec la prise en charge de l’HBP.
        Prog Urol. 2018; 28: 803-812
        • Van der Aa F.
        • Drake M.J.
        • Kasyan G.R.
        • Petrolekas A.
        • Cornu J.-N.
        The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence.
        Eur Urol. 2013; 63: 681-689
        • Léon P.
        • Chartier-Kastler E.
        • Rouprêt M.
        • Ambrogi V.
        • Mozer P.
        • Phé V.
        Long-term functional outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in men with stress urinary incontinence: artificial urinary sphincter in men.
        BJU Int. 2015; 115: 951-957
        • Bates A.S.
        • Martin R.M.
        • Terry T.R.
        Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis.
        BJU Int. 2015; 116: 623-633
        • Tutolo M.
        • Cornu J.
        • Bauer R.M.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38: 710-718
        • Liss M.A.
        • Osann K.
        • Canvasser N.
        • et al.
        Continence definition after radical prostatectomy using urinary quality of life: evaluation of patient reported validated questionnaires.
        J Urol. 2010; 183: 1464-1468
        • García Cortés Á.
        • Colombás Vives J.
        • Gutiérrez Castañé C.
        • et al.
        What is the impact of post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence on everyday quality of life? Linking Pad usage and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) for a COMBined definition (PICOMB definition).
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2021; 40: 840-847