Systematic review of surgical treatment of post radical prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence.

Context Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy (RP) continues to be a significant problem with several implications including patient quality of life and other critical postoperative outcomes. Objectives To report the results in terms of efficacy (pad count, 24 hr pad test, QOL questionnaires) and safety (complication rate and type of complications) of all surgical devices approved for the treatment of SUI after RP. Evidence Acquisition A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. A literature search was carried out through the PubMed/Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases using the keywords "incontinence," "radical prostatectomy," and "'treatment". Inclusion criteria were: number of patients higher than 30, mean follow up longer than 12 months and definition of a successful outcome as the use of 0 to 1 safety pads a day. Evidence Synthesis 113 papers underwent primary review. 51 papers met the inclusion criteria with a total sample size of 4022 patients. Efficacy (0-1 safety pads) was on average 65.7% for AUS, 48.2% for Invance Sling, 48.8% for Advance Sling, 64.2% for ProACT. Twenty four hour pad test and QOL questionnaires were respectively available only in 4 and 18 studies. The overall complication rate was 19.43% for AUS, 7.4% for Invance Sling, 12.3% for Advance Sling, 12.3% for ProACT. Authors' Conclusions Due to the poor overall quality of available studies, it was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Although our data seems to suggest that AUS has the highest efficacy in the treatment of SUI following RP it is also associated with the highest complication rate, but this may be due to the longest follow up. Larger rigorous trials are needed in order to support this evidence. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:875-881, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Spiral multidetector computerized tomography evaluation of adjustable continence therapy implants.

PURPOSE: ProACT is an adjustable continence therapy implant for post-prostatectomy incontinence. We evaluated the exact device location in clinical success and failed implant cases using spiral multidetector computerized tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated 18 consecutive patients postoperatively using pelvic spiral multidetector computerized tomography. Of the patients 11 (61%) were dry or improved and 7 (39%) had not improved despite multiple balloon adjustments. Thin pelvic collimated scans with bone algorithm were obtained, completed by multiplanar reformatting and a volume rendering technique. The computerized tomography technique is described. RESULTS: Multidetector computerized tomography showed device sites compared to local anatomical structures. In 64% of dry or improved patients the devices were above the urogenital diaphragm and adjacent to the urethral wall (the correct position) while in the remaining 36% of cured patients only 1 device was positioned correctly. Of nonimproved patients 86% had balloons that were not adjacent to the urethra. The scout view did not show malpositioning in any of these cases. Only multiplanar reformatting with the volume rendering technique revealed misplacement. CONCLUSIONS: Multidetector computerized tomography data shows that a poor outcome in most failed cases results from poor device positioning. In a few failed cases an unsuccessful result is probably caused by excessive tissue sclerosis. To our knowledge we report for the first time how continence can be determined by the action of only 1 device.

Detrusor acontractility in urinary retention: detrusor contractility test as exclusion criteria for sacral neurostimulation.

PURPOSE: Results of sacral neurostimulation in urinary retention are reported in the literature without distinction between the 2 functional disorders causing this condition, detrusor acontractility and functional outlet obstruction. We have suggested a stimulation test to differentiate irreversible bladder myopathy (or complete neurogenic lesion) from potential bladder contractility eligible for sacral neurostimulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Direct electrostimulation of the sacral nerves was performed with the patient under general anesthesia. Urodynamic monitoring of bladder (detrusor contractility test) and bowel pressures were used. If no bladder contraction (negative detrusor contractility test) was recorded with positive somatic and bowel responses a irreversible bladder myopathy was supposed and the patient discharged home. If no bladder and no bowel contraction were recorded a complete neurogenic lesion was supposed and the patient was also discharged. RESULTS: Of 96 patients tested with the detrusor contractility test 72 (65%) had no bladder contraction and were excluded from sacral neurostimulation therapy. In this series 15 patients had already been tested with percutaneous nerve evaluation on each S3 nerve with negative results. In 18 cases no bladder and no bowel contraction was evoked (neurogenic lesion). In the remaining 54 cases (bowel but no bladder contraction) a bladder myopathy was supposed. In 24 patients the detrusor contractility test was positive and 12 of these underwent implantation with a permanent device for sacral neurostimulation. CONCLUSIONS: The detrusor contractility test can be considered a reliable tool to rule out detrusor acontractility due to irreversible bladder myopathy or complete neurogenic lesion from sacral neurostimulation.