Is the Standard Artificial Urinary Sphincter AMS 800 Still a Treatment Option for the Irradiated Male Patient Presenting with a Devastated Bladder Outlet?

BACKGROUND: Circular urethral compression with an artificial sphincter allows control of voiding, even in patients with severe stress urinary incontinence, but it heightens the risk of urethral atrophy and erosion. This study of one of the largest populations of patients treated with radiotherapy investigates the additive effect of the post-radiogenic stricture of the membranous urethra/bladder neck on AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective multicenter cohort study, we analyzed patients fitted with an AMS 800, comparing those who had received radiotherapy with patients presenting a devastated bladder outlet (stricture of the membranous urethra/bladder neck). We determined the correlation between these groups of patients using both univariate and stepwise adjusted multivariate regression. The revision-free interval was estimated by a Kaplan-Meier plot and compared by applying the log-rank test. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 123 irradiated patients we identified, 62 (50.4%) had undergone at least one prior desobstruction for bladder-neck/urethra stenosis. After a mean follow-up of 21 months, the latter tended to achieve social continence less frequently (25.7% vs. 35%; p = 0.08). Revision was required significantly more often for this group (43.1% vs. 26.3%; p = 0.05) due to urethral erosion in 18 of 25 cases. A stenosis recurred in five cases; desobstruction was performed in two cases, leading to erosion in both. Multivariate analysis revealed a significantly higher risk of revision when recurrent stenosis necessitated at least two prior desobstructions (HR 2.8; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: A devastated bladder outlet is associated with a lower proportion of men with social continence and a significantly higher need for revision compared with irradiated patients without a history of urethral stenosis. Alternative surgical procedures should be discussed beforehand, especially in cases of recurrent urethral stenosis.

Fixed or adjustable sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: results from a large cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Fixed and adjustable male slings for the treatment of male urinary stress incontinence became increasingly popular during the last decade. Although fixed slings are recommended for the treatment of mild to moderate stress urinary incontinence, there is still a lack of evidence regarding the precise indication for an adjustable male sling. Furthermore, there is still no evidence that one type of male sling is superior to another. However, both, adjustable and fixed slings, are commonly utilized in daily clinical practice. This current investigation aims to evaluate the differences between fixed and adjustable male slings regarding indications, complication rates and functional outcome in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence in current clinical practice. METHODS: A total of 294 patients with a fixed and 176 patients with an adjustable male sling were evaluated in a multicenter single arm cohort trial. Data collection was performed retrospectively according the medical record. Functional outcome was prospectively analyzed by standardized, validated questionnaires. Descriptive statistics was performed to present patient characteristics, complication rates and functional outcome. A chi2-test for categorical and independent t-test for continuous variables was performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups and to correlate preoperative characteristics with the outcome. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Patients with higher degree of urinary incontinence (P<0.001) and risk factors such as history of pelvic irradiation (P<0.001) or prior surgery for urethral stricture (P=0.032) were more likely to receive an adjustable MS. Complication rates were comparable except for infection (P=0.009, 0 vs. 2.3%) and pain (P=0.001, 1.7% vs. 11.3%) which occurred more frequently in adjustable slings. Functional outcome according validated questionnaires demonstrated no differences between fixed and adjustable male slings. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustable male slings are more frequently utilized in patients with higher degree of incontinence and risk factors compared to fixed slings. No differences could be identified between functional outcome which may imply an advantage for adjustability. However, pain and infection rates were significantly higher in adjustable MS and should be considered in the decision process for sling type.

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Size Predicts Outcome in Male Patients Treated for Stress Incontinence: Results of a Large Central European Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The aim was to study the correlation between cuff size and outcome after implantation of an AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter. METHODS: A total of 473 male patients with an AMS 800 sphincter implanted between 2012 and 2014 were analyzed in a retrospective multicenter cohort study performed as part of the Central European Debates on Male Incontinence (DOMINO) Project. RESULTS: Single cuffs were implanted in 54.5% and double cuffs in 45.5% of the patients. The cuffs used had a median circumference of 4.5 cm. Within a median follow of 18 months, urethral erosion occurred in 12.8% of the cases and was associated significantly more often with small cuff sizes (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that, apart from cuff size (P=0.03), prior irradiation (P<0.001) and the penoscrotal approach (P=0.036) were associated with an increased erosion rate. Continence rate tended to be highest with median cuff sizes (4-5.5 cm). CONCLUSION: Apart from irradiation and the penoscrotal approach, small cuff size is a risk factor for urethral erosion. Results are best with cuff sizes of 4.5-5.5 cm.

The AdVance and AdVanceXP male sling in urinary incontinence: is there a difference?

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi2-test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups. RESULTS: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage. CONCLUSIONS: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.