Outcomes of sacral neuromodulation in male patients with overactive bladder, chronic pelvic pain, and fecal incontinence.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing body of literature on sacral neuromodulation (SNM) outcomes, research focusing on male patients remains limited and often represented by small cohorts nested within a larger study of mostly women. Herein, we evaluated the outcomes of SNM in a male-only cohort with overactive bladder (OAB), fecal incontinence (FI), chronic bladder pain, and neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 64 male patients who underwent SNM insertion between 2013 and 2021 at a high-volume tertiary center. Indications for SNM therapy included OAB, FI, chronic pelvic pain, and NLUTD. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's and t-test were used in analysis. RESULTS: The mean age was 57.7 ± 13.4 years, and the most frequent reason for SNM insertion was idiopathic OAB (72%), FI (16%), pelvic pain (11%), and NLUTD (11%). A majority (84%) of men received treatment prior to SNM insertion. 84% reported satisfaction and 92% symptom improvement within the first year, and these improvements persisted beyond 1 year in 73% of patients. Mean follow up was 52.7 ± 21.0 months. The complication rate was 23%, and the need for adjunct treatments was significantly reduced (73% to 27%, p < 0.001). Treatment outcomes did not differ significantly between various indications for SNM therapy or the presence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). CONCLUSION: SNM is an effective and safe procedure for male patients with neurogenic and non-neurogenic OAB, pelvic pain, and FI. Over 70% of patients experienced symptomatic improvement and remained satisfied in the mid to long term follow up. BPH does not seem to hinder treatment outcomes.

Sacral neuromodulation in the golden years: Treatment outcomes in elderly 75 years and older.

INTRODUCTION: Despite high prevalence and increased severity and burden of overactive bladder (OAB) and fecal incontinence (FI) in the elderly, sacral neuromodulation (SNM) is often overlooked as a potential treatment option for this demographic. In this study, we report the outcomes of SNM in patients aged 75 years or older at the time of surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent SNM implantation between 2013 and 2022 performed by a single, high-volume urologist at a tertiary center. Success, complication, and adjunct therapy rates were analyzed by Fisher's or Wilcox rank-sum test as appropriate. We compared outcomes between patients aged 75-79 years and octogenarians. RESULTS: Of 632 patients, 50 were ≥75 years. Patients had a mean age of 78.4±2.6 years and were predominantly female (84%). The indications for SNM were 66% OAB, 16% FI, 16% non-obstructive urinary retention, and 4% pelvic pain. Within the first year, 94% of patients reported satisfaction and improvement in symptoms, while 76% continued to experience improvement beyond one year. SNM insertion led to reduced oral medication use from 68% to 24% (p<0.0001). The complication rate was 16% and mostly included device pain. No significant difference was observed in treatment success, complication, or adjunct therapy rate between age groups. CONCLUSIONS: SNM is a safe and effective option in well-selected patients over the age of 75 years. Treatment success rate is comparable to younger cohorts. Advanced age should not preclude third-line therapy options in this population.

Do larger cuff sizes with artificial urinary sphincter placement increase the risk of leakage after placement?

INTRODUCTION: To determine whether larger artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) cuff sizes of ≥ 5.0 cm have an impact on urinary incontinence after AUS implantation as compared to cuff sizes ≤ 4.5 cm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of AUS implants performed at our institution from 1991 to 2021. Medical records were reviewed for demographics including body mass index (BMI), cause of incontinence, pelvic radiation, valsalva leak point pressure (VLPP), degree of leakage preoperatively and at 1-year post-AUS surgery, AUS revisions, erosion rate and the need for adjunct medication postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 44 patients had an AUS cuff size of ≥ 5.0 cm and 66 patients had a cuff size ≤ 4.5 cm. After AUS implantation at 1 year both groups had a median pad use of 1 pad per day. Lastly, the erosion rate was higher in the ≤ 4.5 cm cuff group (7.7% vs. 2.4%) but this was not statically significant. In all cases (6 patients) of cuff erosion, each patient had been radiated. CONCLUSION: AUS cuff sizes of ≥ 5.0 cm do not appear to have a negative impact on the degree of incontinence at 1-year post AUS as compared to those with cuff sizes ≤ 4.5 cm. The erosion rate was higher in those with cuffs ≤ 4.5 cm but was not statistically significant. This would suggest that at AUS implantation, the surgeon should choose a larger cuff if there is any doubt especially in those with radiation.

Artificial urinary sphincter cuffs and safe instrument/catheter passage guidelines.

PURPOSE: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for males with urinary incontinence. It is generally a safe procedure with a high degree of satisfaction. However, there is a lifelong risk of infection and erosion. AUS cuffs are commonly placed around the bulbar urethral area. There is always a risk of trauma and erosion of cuffs with catheterization or endoscopy. At this time, there is little guidance as to which size catheters or scopes can pass through each AUS cuff sizes safely. The goal of this study was to determine which size of catheters/scopes can pass through different cuff sizes safely in an ex vivo setting. METHOD: All AUS cuff sizes available (3.5 cm up to 6.0 cm), catheter sizes between 12 and 22 Fr, and scope sizes 19 Fr flexible/rigid, 21-26 Fr rigid scopes were examined. We used deflated assembled cuffs on the bench (ex vivo) and three different blind observers to measure the free space left between the wall of the cuff and the catheter/scope to be sure that there was consistency. We created a scale from 1 to 3 to determine the ease of passage for each catheter/scope. We also had an MRI radiologist examine bulbar urethra thickness in 20 male patients to determine the average thickness without the bulbospongiosus muscle. Using our average bulbar urethral thickness, we were able to estimate how much free space remained within the urethral lumen and how easy and safe it was to pass each catheter/scope. RESULTS: For 3.5 cm cuffs, 12 Fr catheters pass easily and safely, 14-16 Fr catheters and 19 Fr flexible/rigid scopes can pass through with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through without a significant risk of trauma. For 4.0 cm cuffs, 12-14 Fr catheters pass easily and safely. 16-18 Fr catheters and 19-21 Fr rigid/flexible scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through safely. For 4.5 cm cuffs, 12-18 Fr catheters and 19 Fr flexible/rigid scopes pass easily and safely. 20-22 Fr catheters and 21 Fr rigid scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through safely. For 5.0 cm cuffs, 12-22 Fr catheters and 19-21 Fr flexible/rigid scopes can pass easily and safely. 22-26 Fr scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. For 5.5 cm cuffs, all catheters/scopes can pass easily and safely. However, the 26 Fr rigid scope can pass with some mild risk of trauma. For 6 cm cuffs, all catheters/scopes examined can pass easily and safely. CONCLUSION: Our study can guide urologists in the management of patients with an AUS who need urethral catheters or endoscopy. These recommendations are based on the measurements of our study along with bulbar urethral thickness. In general, greater caution is needed with smaller cuff sizes (3.5-4.5 cm). Our recommendations, with minimal urethral compression, are purposely conservative and safe to avoid trauma and erosion of the AUS cuffs.

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is accurate for high-grade prostate cancer bone staging when compared to bone scintigraphy.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we compared 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG)-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) and bone scintigraphy accuracies for the detection of bone metastases for primary staging in high-grade prostate cancer (PCa) patients to determine if 18F-FDG-PET/CT could be used alone as a staging modality. METHODS: Men with localized high-grade PCa (n=256, Gleason 8-10, International Society of Urological Pathology [ISUP] grades 4 or 5) were imaged with bone scintigraphy and 18F-FDG-PET/CT. We compared, on a per-patient basis, the accuracy of the two imaging modalities, taking inter-modality agreement as the standard of truth (SOT). RESULTS: 18F-FDG-PET/CT detected at least one bone metastasis in 33 patients compared to only 26 with bone scan. Of the seven false-negative bone scintigraphies, four (57.1%) were solitary metastases (monometastatic), three (42.9%) were oligometastatic (2-4 lesions), and none were plurimetastatic (>4 lesions). Compared to SOT, 18F-FDG-PET/CT showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than bone scintigraphy (100% vs. 78.8%, and 98.7% vs. 98.2%) for the detection of skeletal lesions. CONCLUSIONS: 18F-FDG-PET/CT appears similar or better than conventional bone scans to assess for bone metastases in patients newly diagnosed with high-grade PCa. Since intraprostatic FDG uptake is also a biomarker for failure of radical prostatectomy and that FDG-PET/CT has been shown to be accurate in detecting PCa lymph node metastasis, FDG-PET/CT has the potential to be used as the sole preoperative staging modality in high-grade PCa.

Evaluating the distance travelled for urological pediatric appointments.

INTRODUCTION: In Quebec, eight pediatric urologists practice in three tertiary centers covering large territories. To improve the availability of pediatric urology to distant families and to reduce the economic burden on them, we examined the charts of all patients attending the pediatric urological outpatient clinic. Our objectives were to evaluate the distance travelled by each urological pediatric outpatient and to report the most frequent urological referral complaints. METHODS: From July 2016 to June 2017, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of all the 3604 pediatric patients seen in the outpatient urological clinic of the CHU de Québec. We specifically focused on travel distance covered by families and the reason for referral. RESULTS: Most patients were boys (78%) and the mean age was 7.2 years. The average one-way distance travelled by each family was 69 km. The patients came more frequently from Capitale-Nationale (63.7%) and Chaudière-Appalaches (21.9%), the closest regions. The most common reasons for consultations were postoperative followups (15%), phimosis and adhesions (14%), enuresias (14%), hydronephrosis (13%), micturition disorder (11%), and cryptorchidism and retractile testicles (8%). Of all patients seen for phimosis or cryptorchidism, only 24% and 36% of them, respectively, were scheduled for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Phimosis, cryptorchidism, and voiding disorders are the most frequent pediatric urological reasons for consultation; primary care continuing medical education seems worthwhile. It would, perhaps, be more beneficial for all to have the pediatric urologists travelling to perform clinics and surgeries in distant regions to save more than 300 km round trip to several families.