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.

Patient Selection in Surgical Centers of Expertise in the Treatment of Patients with Moderate to Severe Male Urinary Stress Incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze decision-making in patients with male urinary incontinence (SUI) in centers of expertise. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the gold standard for male patients with moderate to severe SUI but adjustable male slings are a minimally invasive treatment option with good results, hence without a high level of evidence regarding the optimal patient selection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 220 patients (88 AUS; 132 adjustable slings) were investigated from the DOMINO database that underwent surgery between 2010 and 2012 in 5 urological departments that offer adjustable sling systems as well as AUS systems for patients with moderate to severe urinary incontinence. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to identify differences between both groups. RESULTS: Patients selected for an adjustable male sling were less likely to have a neurological disease (5.3 vs. 9.1%; p = 0.030), a prior urethral stricture (22.7 vs. 50.0%; p = 0.001), a prior incontinence surgery (24.4 vs. 45.5%; p = 0.01), or a prior radiation therapy (26.5 vs. 40.1%; p = 0.001). The severity of preoperative incontinence was higher in patients selected for an AUS with a mean pad usage per day of 7.60 versus 5.80 (p < 0.001). Mean postoperative pad usage and patients' subjective perception were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION: In centers offering both options, the decision-making is mainly based upon presence of radiation therapy and previous failed incontinence surgery. Despite the more complex patient cohort selected for an AUS implantation with a possible impact on the postoperative outcome, the functional results seem to be comparable indicating a proper preoperative patient assessment and selection in this cohort.

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.

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

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.

High/low-volume center experience predicts outcome of AMS 800 in male stress incontinence: Results of a large middle European multicenter case series.

AIM: To analyze the influence of implantation volume of artificial sphincters (AMS 800) on outcome in a large central European multicenter cohort study. METHODS: As part of the DOMINO (Debates on Male Incontinence) project, the surgical procedures and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in a total of 473 patients who received an artificial sphincter (AMS 800) between 2010 and 2012. Clinics that implanted at least 10 AMS 800 per year were defined as high-volume centers. RESULTS: Sixteen centers had a mean rate of 9.54 AMS 800/y of which five clinics were identified as high-volume centers. They implanted significantly more double cuffs (55% vs 12.1%; P < .001), used the perineal approach significantly more often (78% vs 67.7%; P = .003) and chose larger mean cuff sizes (4.63 cm vs 4.42 cm; P = .002). With a mean follow-up of 18 months, the revision rate was significantly higher at low-volume centers (38.5% vs 26.7%; P = .037), urethral erosion being the main reason for revision. Social continence (0-1 pads/24 h) was achieved significantly more often in high-volume centers (45.5% vs 24.2%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed significantly better continence results and lower revision rates at high-volume centers, confirming earlier results that are still true in this decade. We, therefore, recommend surgery for male incontinence at qualified centers.

Retropubic vs transobturator Argus adjustable male sling: Results from a multicenter study.

AIMS: To comparatively analyse outcomes after ARGUS classic and ArgusT adjustable male sling implantation in a real-world setting. METHODS: Inclusion criteria encompassed: non-neurogenic, moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence (≥2 pads), implantation of an ARGUS classic or ArgusT male sling between 2010 and 2012 in a high-volume center (>150 previous implantations). Functional outcomes were assessed using daily pad usage, 24-hour pad testing, and International Consultation on Incontinence (ICIQ-SF) questionnaires. Continence was defined as zero pads per 24 hours. Complications were graded using Clavien-Dindo scale. For multivariate analysis, binary logistic regression models were used (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 106 patients (n = 74 [ARGUS classic], n = 32 [ArgusT]) from four centers were eligible. Median follow-up was 44.0 months (24-64). Patient cohorts were well-balanced. We observed a statistical trend in favor of ARGUS classic regarding postoperative urine loss based on standardized 24-hour pad test (71 ± 162 g [ARGUS classic] vs 160 ± 180 g [ArgusT]); P = .066]. Dry rates were 33.3% (ARGUS classic) and 11.8% (ArgusT, P = .114). In multivariable analysis, ArgusT male sling could not be confirmed as an independent predictor of decreased success (OR, 0.587; 95% CI; 0.166-2.076, P = .408). There were no Clavien IV and V complications. Inguinal pain was significantly higher after ArgusT implantation (P = .033). Explantation rates were higher for ArgusT compared to ARGUS classic (14.0 vs 23.3%; P = .371). Longer device survival for the ARGUS classic male sling was observed in Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .198). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest comparative analysis of ARGUS classic and ArgusT male sling with the longest follow-up to date, we observed low continence rates with superior functional outcomes and decreased explantation rates after ARGUS classic implantation.

Targeting Moderate and Severe Male Stress Urinary Incontinence With Adjustable Male Slings and the Perineal Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Focus on Perioperative Complications and Device Explantations.

PURPOSE: To analyze perioperative complications and postoperative explantation rates for selected readjustable male sling systems and the perineal single-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-two male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in the study (n=127 adjustable male sling [n=95 Argus classic, n=32 Argus T], n=155 AUS). Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed. The explantation rates of the respective devices were assessed using the Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. A Kaplan-Meier curve was generated. Potential features associated with device explantation were analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model (P<0.05). RESULTS: We found significantly increased intraoperative complication rates after adjustable male sling implantation (15.9% [adjustable male sling] vs. 4.2% [AUS], P=0.003). The most frequent intraoperative complication was bladder perforation (n=17). Postoperative infection rates did not vary significantly between the respective devices (P=0.378). Device explantation rates were significantly higher after AUS implantation (9.7% [adjustable male sling] vs. 21.5% [AUS], P=0.030). In multivariate analysis, postoperative infection was a strong independent predictor of decreased device survival (odds ratio, 6.556; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complication profiles vary between adjustable male slings and AUS. Explantation rates are lower after adjustable male sling implantation. Any kind of postoperative infections are independent predictors of decreased device survival. There is no significant effect of the experience of the implanting institution on device survival.

Antibiotic Coating of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AMS 800): Is it Worthwhile?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the antibiotic coating InhibiZone on the infection and explantation rates of the AMS 800 in comparison to the AMS 800 without InhibiZone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 305 patients with an AMS 800 in a multicenter cohort study. Patients were subsequently divided into InhibiZone and without InhibiZone-coated groups. Infection and explantation rates were analyzed by univariate and consecutively by multivariate logistic regression adjusted to variable risk factors. The infection-free interval was estimated by Kaplan-Meier plot and compared by the log-rank test. A P value below .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We identified 47 patients with InhibiZone and 258 without InhibiZone coating. In univariate analysis, we could not identify a significant difference in infection (P = .932) or explantation (P = .715) rates between the groups. In multivariate analysis, impaired wound healing (P = .008) and urethral erosion (P < .001) were independent predictors for infection. The InhibiZone coating neither demonstrated significant influence on the infection rate (P = .534) nor on the explantation rate (P = .214). There was no significant difference in estimated infection-free survival between the groups (P = .265). CONCLUSION: The antibiotic coating of the AMS 800 had no significant impact on infection or explantation rates in our cohort.

Risk Factors for Failure of Male Slings and Artificial Urinary Sphincters: Results from a Large Middle European Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: We analysed the impact of predefined risk factors: age, diabetes, history of pelvic irradiation, prior surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), prior urethral stricture, additional procedure during SUI surgery, duration of incontinence, ASA-classification and cause for incontinence on failure and complications in male SUI surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 506 patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and 513 patients with a male sling (MS) in a multicenter cohort study. Complication rates were correlated to the risk factors in univariate analysis. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression adjusted to the risk factors was performed. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A history of pelvic irradiation was an independent risk factor for explantation in AUS (p < 0.001) and MS (p = 0.018). Moreover, prior urethral stricture (p = 0.036) and higher ASA-classification (p = 0.039) were positively correlated with explantation in univariate analysis for AUS. Urethral erosion was correlated with prior urethral stricture (p < 0.001) and a history of pelvic irradiation (p < 0.001) in AUS. Furthermore, infection was correlated with additional procedures during SUI surgery in univariate analysis (p = 0.037) in MS. CONCLUSIONS: We first identified the correlation of higher ASA-classification and explantation in AUS. Nevertheless, only a few novel risk factors had a significant influence on the failure of MS or AUS.

Complications and Short-Term Explantation Rate Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation: Results from a Large Middle European Multi-Institutional Case Series.

UNLABELLED: Background/Aims/Objectives: To analyze perioperative complication and short-term explantation rates after perineal or penoscrotal single-cuff and double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in a large middle European multi-institutional patient cohort. METHODS: 467 male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a perineal single-cuff (n = 152), penoscrotal single-cuff (n = 99), or perineal double-cuff (n = 216) AUS between 2010 and 2012. Postoperative complications and 6-month explantation rates were assessed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and a multiple logistic regression model were used (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Compared to perineal single-cuff AUS, penoscrotal single-cuff implantation led to significantly increased short-term explantation rates (8.6% (perineal) vs. 19.2% (penoscrotal), p = 0.019). The postoperative infection rate was significantly higher after double-cuff compared to single-cuff implantation (6.0% (single-cuff) vs. 13.9% (double-cuff), p = 0.019). The short-term explantation rate after primary double-cuff placement was 6.5% (p = 0.543 vs. perineal single-cuff). In multivariate analysis, the penoscrotal approach (p = 0.004), intraoperative complications (p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding (p = 0.011), and perioperative infection (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for short-term explantation. CONCLUSIONS: Providing data from a large contemporary multi-institutional patient cohort from high-volume and low-volume institutions, our results reflect the current standard of care in middle Europe. We indicate that the penoscrotal approach is an independent risk factor for increased short-term explantation rates.

Efficacy and safety of the ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence: lessons learned.

PURPOSE: To analyze efficacy and safety for the ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter in a multicenter case series. METHODS: Thirteen male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter device between 2010 and 2012 in three international continence reference centers. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo scale. Re-hospitalization and explantation rates, and functional outcome were assessed. Inner-group and between-group differences were analyzed using Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's exact test whenever indicated. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess device survival. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There were no intraoperative complications. Median follow-up was 13.5 months. In this period, four device defects (30.8 %) could be observed, being the main cause for device explantation, followed by device infection (15.4 %), non-resolvable pain (7.7 %), and urethral erosion (7.7 %). There were no Clavien IV or Clavien V complications. Overall explantation rate was 61.5 %. Mean time-to-explantation was 279 ± 308 days. There was no significant influence of previous irradiation and previous invasive incontinence therapy (p = 0.587 and p = 0.685, respectively). Mean daily pad usage decreased from 5.8 ± 1.5 to 2.4 ± 2.1 (p = 0.066). One patient (7.7 %) did not use any pads. Social continence (0-1 pads) was achieved in 15.4 % of the patients. CONCLUSION: This is the most current study that is investigating the outcome after ZSI375 implantation in a multicenter case series. Based on our results, explantation rates after ZSI375 implantation are high and efficacy rates seem lower than previously described. Addressing this high failure rate, the system has undergone a two-step modification in the meantime.