Eighteen years of experience in laparoscopic implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is a treatment option for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after failure of previous surgery or as a primary procedure in severe intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). The aim of the study was to assess the long-term efficacy and risk factors for surgical revision and definitive explantation of AUS laparoscopic implantation in female patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of all women submitted to AUS implantation between April 2005 and March 2023 was conducted. The AUS was implanted via transperitoneal laparoscopic approach, by two experienced surgeons. The primary endpoint was postoperative continence. Continence was defined as no leakage and no pad usage or leakage and/or pad usage with no impact on social life and failure as leakage and/or pad usage impacting social life. As secondary outcomes, clinical predictive factors for AUS revision and definitive explantation were evaluated. RESULTS: In the last 18 years, females with a mean age of 68±12 years-old were submitted to laparoscopic implantation of AUS. Early overall complication rate was 16%, but only one case was Clavien-Dindo ≥3. After a median follow-up of 67 months, 22.2% of the patients needed a device revision, the majority due to mechanical device dysfunction. AUS definitive explantation was performed in 16%, mainly due to urethral/vaginal erosion (9.9%) and infection (6.2%). Patients with age ≥70 years and follow-up ≥10 years significantly predisposed for device revision. At the time of the last follow-up, 72% of the patients were keeping the urinary continency. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic AUS implantation in females is an effective treatment for SUI due to ISD. Meanwhile, adequate patient selection, multidisciplinary evaluation and careful expectation management are essential to achieving good results, concerning their significant complication rate.

Neurological sphincter deficiency: is there a place for artificial urinary sphincter?

PURPOSE: Neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (N-SUI) is a condition with serious impact on the quality of life. There are several treatment modalities of which the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) stands out as the most suitable technique for addressing sphincter insufficiency. In this article, the purpose is to describe practical considerations, outcomes, and complications of the artificial urinary sphincter in neurological sphincter deficiency in both males and females. METHODS: A narrative review of the current literature. RESULTS: The outcomes of AUS are reasonably good in patients with NLUTD, the surgical technique is discussed as well as the limitations and special considerations in this complex and heterogeneous patient population. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that its efficacy and functional durability may be lower in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) compared to those without neurological deficits. However, studies have shown that AUS can still provide effective and safe continence outcomes in both male and female patients, with long-term device survival rates ranging from several years to over a decade.

Androgens and Urethral Health: How Hypogonadism Affects Postoperative Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Artificial Urinary Sphincter or Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Placement.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the role of androgens in penile and urethral health, we sought to understand what impact hypogonadism may have on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) outcomes. We hypothesize that patients with hypogonadism are at increased risk of reinterventions, complications, and infections. METHODS: We queried the TriNetX Global Database in March 2023 for patients receiving an AUS or IPP, looking at lifetime reintervention, complication, and infection rates. We conducted multiple comparisons: (1) eugonadal patients against hypogonadal patients, (2) hypogonadal patients on testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) against hypogonadal patients not on TRT, and (3) hypogonadal patients on TRT against eugonadal patients. RESULTS: Hypogonadal patients undergoing AUS had more complications (33.5% vs 28.3%), higher reintervention rates (27.7% vs 24.3%) and higher infection rates (7.3% vs 6.8%), albeit none reaching significance. Hypogonadal patients undergoing IPP had significantly higher infection rates (6.3% vs 4.4%, RR 1.5 (1.04, 2.04)) and reintervention rates (14.9% vs 11.9%, RR 1.3 (1.04, 1.61)), but not complication rates (21.9% vs 18.9%). When comparing patients with hypogonadism on TRT vs off TRT, there was not a significant difference in reinterventions, or complications, in AUS and IPP patients, but there were significantly more infections in IPP patients (7.0% vs 3.9%, RR 1.9 (1.002, 3.5)). CONCLUSION: Hypogonadal patients have more reinterventions, complications, and infections following urologic implant surgery, to varying levels of significance. TRT may not be completely protective to improve tissue health but with many limitations that should be explored in further research.

The 51-60 cm H2O Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pressure Regulating Balloon: Indications and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the role and long-term outcomes of using the 51-60cm H2O pressure regulating balloon (PRB) in male patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). METHODS: From 2005-2021, 90 patients with a variety of urethral risk factors underwent AUS placement with use of the low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB to treat stress incontinence. Patient demographics, indication for use of the 51-60 cm H2O PRB, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were examined and Pearson's chi squared test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to identify associations with future revisions, erosion, and mechanical failure. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in the study. After median follow-up of 46.6months (range: 6-146months), 4 (4.44%) patients developed an erosion-related complication that required device removal, 4 developed an infection, and 3 underwent surgery for pump relocation. One patient had a reported mechanical failure of unknown source. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery to reduce incontinence. Of the 4 patients with erosion, 1 was due to iatrogenic catheterization. The remaining 3 had numerous urethral risk factors. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of cuff erosion, infection, and revision in patients with a 51-60 cm H2O PRB. No significant associations were found including prior pelvic radiation, age at AUS placement, presence of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), prior AUS erosion, or previous urethroplasty. CONCLUSION: The low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB can be used in high-risk male patients with urinary incontinence with low rates of complications including erosion, infection, and mechanical failure. While patients may choose to undergo future revisional surgery to improve continence, the 51-60 cm H2O PRB should be considered as the initial PRB in patients with urethral risk factors.

Robot-assisted Periprostatic Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation in Men with Neurogenic Stress Urinary Incontinence: Description of the Surgical Technique and Comparison of Long-term Functional Outcomes with the Open Approach.

BACKGROUND: Periprostatic artificial urinary sphincter implantation (pAUSi) is a rare yet relevant indication for male neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI). OBJECTIVE: To describe the surgical technique of robot-assisted pAUSi (RApAUSi) and compare the long-term functional results with the open pAUSi (OpAUSi). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data of 65 consecutive men with neurogenic SUI undergoing pAUSi between 2000 and 2022 in a tertiary centre were collected retrospectively. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Thirty-three patients underwent OpAUSi and 32 underwent RApAUSi. OpAUSi cases were performed by a single surgeon, experienced in functional urology and prosthetic surgery. RApAUSi cases were performed by the same surgeon together with a second surgeon, experienced in robotic surgery. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures were achievement of complete urinary continence, intra- and postoperative complications, and surgical revision-free survival (SRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: RApAUSi showed superior results to OpAUSi in terms of median (interquartile range) operative time (RApAUSi: 170 [150-210] min vs OpAUSi: 245 [228-300] min; p < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RApAUSi: 20 [0-50] ml vs OpAUSi: 500 [350-700] ml; p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (LOS; RApAUSi: 5 [4-6] d vs OpAUSi: 11 [10-14] d; p < 0.001). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3a complications occurred more frequently after OpAUSi (RApAUSi: 1/32 [3%] vs OpAUSi: 10/33 [30%]; p = 0.014). Achievement of complete urinary continence (zero pads) was comparable between the groups (RApAUSi: 24/32 [75%] vs OpAUSi: 24/33 [73%]; p = 0.500). The median follow-up periods were 118 (50-183) and 56 (25-84) mo for OpAUSi and RApAUSi, respectively (p < 0.001). A tendency towards longer SRFS was observed in the RApAUSi group (p = 0.076). The main study limitation was its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: RApAUSi is an efficient alternative to OpAUSi, resulting in shorter operative times, less blood loss, fewer severe complications, and a shorter LOS with similar functional results and need for revision surgery. PATIENT SUMMARY: Compared with open periprostatic artificial urinary sphincter implantation (pAUSi), robot-assisted pAUSi leads to faster recovery and similar functional results, with fewer postoperative complications.

Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of Lateral Retroperitoneal Pressure Regulating Balloon Placement During Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe immediate and long-term outcomes of pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in male patients receiving an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent primary AUS placement between 2006 and 2021. All patients had the PRB placed in the LR during the study period. Intraoperative complications during PRB placement, exchange, or removal, and indications for PRB revision, such as infection, erosion, or mechanical failures were analyzed. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary implantation with no intraoperative complications including no incidents of bowel or vascular injury during PRB placement. In addition, there were no instances of intraoperative injury during PRB removal (with or without PRB replacement). After mean follow-up of 54.8months (range: 1-181months), 9 patients (1.7%) developed a reservoir-specific complication with infection (5 patients, 0.9%) being the most common issue found. The second most common type or reservoir issue was a palpable or herniated reservoir. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who herniated their reservoirs and one patient with a nonbothersome, but palpable reservoir. Lastly, there were 2 incidents (0.4%) of mechanical failure caused by a leak in the PRB. CONCLUSION: Due to the ease and safety of placing and removing PRBs from this location and exceedingly low rates of PRB-related complications in long-term follow-up, the LR should be considered as an ideal location for PRB placement in male patients receiving an AUS.

No-Opioid Discharge Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement Does Not Significantly Increase Health Care System Burden.

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative opioid prescriptions are associated with an increased risk of opioid dependance. While studies on no-opioid discharge strategies have been assessed following many urologic procedures, the effect of no-opioid discharges on health care utilization following artificial urinary sphincter placement is unknown. We performed a single-surgeon retrospective comparison of health care system interactions following artificial urinary sphincter implantation between patients who received an opioid prescription on discharge to those who did not. METHODS: We identified 101 male patients who underwent 3-piece artificial urinary sphincter placement or revision by 1 provider between 2015 and 2022. All patients were discharged with acetaminophen and ibuprofen; none received intraoperative local anesthetic. Demographic information, preprocedural opioid use, opioid prescriptions following the procedure, postoperative office communications, unplanned office visits, and emergency department (ED) visits were recorded for each patient for 90 days. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (45%) were discharged without an opioid prescription and 56 patients (55%) were discharged with an opioid prescription. No differences in age, race, BMI, operative time, or presence of a preoperative opioid prescription were observed. Discharge without an opioid did not significantly increase the number of office communications (55% vs 40%, P = .11), unplanned office visits (36% vs 23%, P = .19), or ED visits (20 vs 12, P = .41) within 90 days of implantation/revision. CONCLUSIONS: Opioids can be omitted from the discharge analgesic regimen following artificial urinary sphincter placement without increasing burden to surgical office staff or local EDs. Providers should consider no-opioid discharges for patients undergoing uncomplicated sphincter placement to limit risk of opioid-related morbidity.

Which revision strategy is the best for non-mechanical failure of male artificial urinary sphincter?

PURPOSE: Persistence or recurrence of stress urinary incontinence (prSUI) after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation may be secondary to non-mechanical failure (NOMECA). It have for long been assumed to result from urethral atrophy. Its existence is now debated. As the pathophysiology of NOMECA is not elucidated, the most appropriate management remains unclear. We aimed to compare the several revision techniques for NOMECA of AUS in men. METHODS: NOMECA was defined as prSUI, with normally functioning device, no erosion, infection or fluid loss. Exclusion criteria were neurogenic SUI, revision or explantation for other causes. From 1991 to 2022, 143 AUS revisions for NOMECA, including 99 cuff DOWNSIZING, 10 cuff repositioning (RELOC), 13 TANDEM-CUFF placement, 18 cuff changing (CHANGE), three increasing balloon pressure (BALLOON-UP), were performed in 10 centers. BALLOON-UP patients weren't included in comparative analysis due to small sample size. All components could be changed during the revision. Patients were also categorized in COMPLETE-CHANGE vs. PARTIAL-CHANGE of the device. RESULTS: The three-months complete continence rate was 70.8% with a significant difference between RELOC and DOWNSIZING groups (p = 0.04). COMPLETE CHANGE was significantly associated with complete continence status at three months in multivariate analysis (83.3% vs. 63.3%, OR = 2.7; CI 95% [1.1-7.1], p = 0.03). Estimated five-year reoperation-free and explantation-free survival were respectively 63.4% and 75.9% (p = 0.16; p = 0.30). Those were significantly longer in COMPLETE-CHANGE vs PARTIAL-CHANGE (82.2% vs. 69.6%, p = 0.03); (71.2% vs. 58.2%, p = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: AUS revision for prSUI due to NOMECA yields satisfactory outcomes regardless of the technique used. We observed better functional outcomes when repositioning the new cuff. COMPLETE-CHANGE may improve functional outcomes, explantation-free and reoperation-free survivals.

[Use of implants to treat male urinary incontinence]. / Einsatz von Implantaten zur Versorgung der männlichen Harninkontinenz.

Treatments for benign and malignant pathologies of the prostate can compromise urine control. Urinary incontinence (UI) affects the quality of life of patients and limits their ability to carry out usual activities. The degree of impact of UI is variable and the associated discomforts make patients seek treatment for it. At the center of the management of urinary incontinence in men are surgical interventions that seek to replace the affected sphincter function through implants. The artificial urinary sphincter since its development in the 1970s has been considered the standard of treatment for UI in men. More recently artificial sphincter and slings have been shown to be effective in a selected group of incontinent men. The goals of surgical treatment of incontinence include the preservation of bladder function, the ability to improve the strength of the urinary sphincter, and to reduce or eliminate urine leakage, and thereby improve the quality of life. The aim of the article is to present various implants for the correction of male urinary incontinence.

Guiding Clinical Decision Making for Surgical Incontinence Treatment After Prostatectomy: A Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy is a common and debilitating side effect. Immediate post-prostatectomy management emphasizes pelvic floor muscle exercises. Per American Urologic Association guidelines, if incontinence persists for more than 12 months postoperatively, surgical interventions are the mainstay of treatment. Treatment decisions depend on a multitude of factors. The goal of this paper is to review recent literature updates regarding the diagnosis of male SUI to better guide surgical treatment decision-making. RECENT FINDINGS: Patient history is a critical component in guiding surgical decision making with severity and bother being primary factors driving treatment decisions. Recent studies indicate that a history of pelvic radiation continues to impact the overall duration and complication rate associated with artificial urinary sphincters (AUS). Cystoscopy should be done on every patient preparing to undergo surgical SUI treatment. Urodynamics and standing cough stress tests are additional diagnostic testing options; these tests may augment the diagnosis of SUI and better delineate which patients may benefit from a male sling versus AUS. Treatment of SUI after prostatectomy can improve health-related quality of life. A patient history focused on severity and degree of bother in addition to the use of ancillary office testing can help guide surgical treatment decisions to optimize patient continence goals.

Using a stress reservoir to improve urine leakage after artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Although the longest efficacy record, some patients report about urinary leakage during higher intra-abdominal pressure after Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS) implantation. To improve the continent results, we placed in addition to the occluding cuff and the pressure regulating balloon, in a second procedure a stress-relief reservoir in lower abdomen, for additional passive pressure transmission to the occluding cuff. METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric data analysis between 2011 and 2018, 80 patients with persistence incontinence after AUS implantation were included. Stress-relief reservoir was indicated in 12 patients with involuntary leakage of urine, that occurred when intra-abdominal pressure raised. RESULTS: In all 12 cases, the stress reservoir was easily implanted and there were no intraoperative complications. In a mean follow-up time of 53 months, the pad per day usage (p/d) improved from 3 (± 1.2) to 1.7 (± 1.5) (p = 0.001). Two patients with multiple previous abdominal surgeries used an equal number of pads after SRR; however, an improvement during physical exertion was reported. Continence situation was evaluated with a questionnaire and was rated as "excellent", "good", or "satisfactory" by 11 (92%) patients. CONCLUSION: The persistence of urinary incontinence after AUS is a challenging topic. Implantation of a stress reservoir in carefully selected patients with urinary leakage during higher intra-abdominal pressure is minimally invasive and offers new options to improve the proven long-term record of AUS. Certainly, more investigations are needed to determine the clinical relevance of this approach.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of complications of artificial urinary sphincters in female patients with urinary incontinence due to internal sphincter insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is a common worldwide rising health issue among women with a prevalence of 5 to 70%. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the most common subtype of UI. There are different treatments for UI, including AUS (artificial urinary sphincter) implantation, as one of the surgical options for treating SUI. The aim of this study was to determine the complication rate of AUS, exclusively in female patients with SUI, which resulted from ISD (intrinsic sphincter deficiency). We also compared the complication rate between minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic surgery) and open approaches. METHODS: Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies regarding complications in AUS implantation surgery, from the beginning of the project to March 2022. After screening and reviewing of full text, the general characteristics of the study and study population including follow-up time, type of surgery, and the number of complications that occurred such as necrosis, atrophy, erosion, infection, mechanical failure, revision, and leak, were extracted. RESULTS: We found that atrophy occurred in 1 of 188 (0.53%) patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and in 1 of 669 (0.15%) patients treated with open surgery. None of the 17 included studies reported the occurrence of necrosis in the patients under study. Erosion occurred in 9 of 188 (4.78%) patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and in 41 of 669 (6.12%) patients treated with open surgery. Infection occurred in 12 of 188 (6.38%) patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and in 22 of 669 (3.2%) patients treated with open surgery. The mechanical failure occurred in 1 of 188 (0.53%) patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and in 55 of 669 (8.22%) patients treated with open surgery. Reconstructive surgery occurred in 7 of 188 (3.72%) patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and in 95 of 669 (14.2%) patients treated with open surgery. Leaks occurred in 4 of 188 (2.12%) patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and in 6 of 669 (0.89%) patients treated with open surgery. The type of surgery was associated with a statistically significant increase in mechanical failure (p-value = 0.067) and infection (p-value = 0.021), and reconstructive surgery (p-value = 0.049). Out of the 857 participats in the study,469 were studied for less than five years and 388 were studied for more than five years.21 of 469 (4.4%) (p-value = 0.08) patients and 81 of 388 (20.8%) (p-value = 0.001) patients required reconstructive surgery. Erosion occurred in 23 of 469 (4.9%) (p-value = 0.01)patients with following time less than five years and in 27 of 388 (6.9%) (p-value = 0.001) patients with following time more than five years. CONCLUSION: The use of artificial urinary sphincters in the treatment of UI causes complications such as atrophy, erosion, and infection; the amount of which is influenced by the surgical method and the duration of using the artificial urinary sphincter. It seems that the use of new surgical methods, such as laparoscopic surgery, is useful in reducing the incidence of complications.

Trends over 20 years of antimicrobial prophylaxis for artificial urinary sphincter surgery.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis is crucial for prevention of prosthesis and patient morbidity after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement. While antibiotic guidelines exist for many urologic procedures, adoption patterns for AUS surgery are unclear. We aimed to assess trends in antibiotic prophylaxis for AUS and outcomes relative to American Urological Association (AUA) Best Practice guidelines. METHODS: The Premier Healthcare Database was queried from 2000 to 2020. Encounters involving AUS insertion, revision/removal, and associated complications were identified via ICD and CPT codes. Premier charge codes were used to identify antibiotics used during the insertion encounter. AUS-related complication events were found using patient hospital identifiers. Univariable analysis between hospital/patient characteristics and use of guideline-adherent antibiotics was done via chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests. A multivariable logistic mixed effects model was used to assess factors related to the odds of complication, specifically the use of guideline-adherent versus nonadherent regimens. RESULTS: Of 9775 patients with primary AUS surgery, 4310 (44.1%) received guideline-adherent antibiotics. The odds of guideline-adherent regimen use increased 7.7% per year with 53.0% (830/1565) receiving guideline-adherent antibiotics by the end of the study period. Patients with guideline-adherent regimens had a decreased risk of any complication (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.74-0.93) and surgical revision (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.74-0.96) within 3 months; however, no significant difference in infection within was noted (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.68-1.17) within 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to AUA antimicrobial guidelines for AUS surgery appears to have increased over the last two decades. While guideline-adherent regimens were associated with decreased risk of any complication and surgical intervention, no significant association was found with risk of infection. Surgeons appear to be increasingly following AUA recommendations for antimicrobial prophylaxis for AUS surgery, however, further level 1 evidence should be obtained to demonstrate conclusive benefit of these regimens.

Urethral bulking with native tissue during artificial urinary sphincter surgery.

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the "gold standard" surgical treatment for severe stress urinary incontinence.  However, a subset of patients with frail urethras may require technical adjuncts to ensure optimal cuff function.  Our objective is to provide a detailed tutorial of our institution's method for performing urethral bulking with native tissue in patients with frail urethras during AUS surgery. We have found that urethral bulking with native tissue provides a cost-efficient and durable technique for improved AUS cuff coaptation.  Our experience demonstrates adequate short and intermediate term efficacy with limited complications.  These techniques equip surgeons with an alternative surgical approach for appropriate patients receiving AUS surgery who have been previously exposed to pelvic radiation and/or significant surgical morbidity resulting in frail urethral tissue.

Robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revisions for women suffering from non-neurogenic stress incontinence: a single center experience.

PURPOSE: Patients with artificial urinary eventually need surgical revision. Unfortunately, in women, this requires another invasive abdominal intervention. Robotic-assisted revision may provide a less invasive and more acceptable approach for sphincter revision in women. We wanted to determinate the continence status after robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revision among women with stress incontinence. We also examined postoperative complications and the safety of the procedure. METHODS: The chart of the 31 women with stress urinary incontinence who underwent robotic-assisted AUS revision at our referral center from January 2015 to January 2022 were reviewed retrospectively. All patients underwent a robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revision by one of our two expert surgeons. The primary outcome was to determinate the continence rate after revision and the secondary outcome aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the procedure. RESULTS: Mean patients age was 65 years old, and the mean time between the sphincter revision and previous implantation was 98 months. After a mean follow-up of 35 months, 75% of the patients were fully continent (0-pad). Moreover, 71% of the women were back to the same continence status as with the previously functional sphincter, while 14% even have an improved continence status. Clavien-Dindo grade [Formula: see text] 3 and overall complications occurred in 9% and 20.5% of our patients, respectively. This study is mainly limited by its retrospective design. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted AUS revision carries satisfying outcome in terms of continence and safety.

Ambulatory peri-bulbar implantation, revision and replacement of Artificial Urinary Sphincter in neurogenic and non-neurogenic male patients: A preliminary feasibility study over a one-year experience.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to determine the rate of complications, early revision and removal after full ambulatory implantation of bulbar AUS in men; secondly, to describe satisfaction and short-term continence rate. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between April 2018 and April 2019, 28 consecutive patients underwent AUS implantation in a newly organised ambulatory setting. A prospective database of all included patients was established with comprehensive data collected on medical history, aetiology and severity of SUI, surgical procedures, postoperative complications and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients were included (30 consecutive procedures: 22 primary AUS placement, 6 complete revisions, 2 partial revisions), with a mean follow up of 223±220.5 days. Fourteen patients had prior radiotherapy. Readmission rate was 6.7% in the first 30 days after surgery. Both revision and removal rates were 6.7%. Complications were reported in 26.7% of procedures, mainly Clavien-Dindo I. Patient satisfaction of ambulatory surgery organisation and experience was high (87/5% satisfied or very satisfied). Full continence & social continence were achieved for, respectively, 55.6% and 88.9% of procedures. CONCLUSION: Ambulatory placement of AUS is safe and can be performed successfully. Larger patient cohorts and randomised trials are crucial to improve knowledge on non-indications for full ambulatory AUS implantation in men.

Urethral Stricture Formation After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Erosion Is Uncommon in the Absence of Pelvic Radiation.

PURPOSE: Reported rates of urethral stricture development after artificial urinary sphincter erosion are highly variable. We hypothesized that the risk of stricture is commensurate with the degree of erosion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed our prospectively maintained quality improvement database for all patients with artificial urinary sphincter erosion from 2011 to 2022. The incidence of postoperative stricture development was compared to the severity of erosion using a graded scale: 1, <25% circumference; 2, 25%-50% circumference; 3, >50% and <100% circumference; and 4, 100% circumference. From 862 artificial urinary sphincter surgeries, 102 erosion cases were identified, and 63 with documented erosion severity were included for analysis. Additional analysis was performed on 28 cases without documented erosion severity for validation. RESULTS: Within the main cohort, urethral stricture developed in 22 (34.9%) patients. The incidence of stricture did not vary by grade of erosion (P = .73) and was not significantly higher in men with grade 4 erosion vs lower-grade erosions (32.7% vs 50.0%, P = .34). Radiation exposure was associated with a 41.1% higher incidence of stricture (P < .01) and nearly every stricture occurred in the setting of prior radiation (21 of 22; 95.5%). In the validation group, 10 (35.7%) developed stricture, mostly in the setting of radiation (8 of 10; 80%). Overall, 29 of 32 (90.6%) cases of stricture involved a history of radiation. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial urinary sphincter erosion does not lead to urethral stricture formation in most cases and is not associated with degree of erosion. Those who develop strictures nearly always have a history of pelvic radiation.

Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation in Patients with Detrusor Underactivity and Postprostatectomy Incontinence.

PURPOSE: There is insufficient evidence for postoperative outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation for postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) with detrusor underactivity (DU). Thus, we assessed the impact of preoperative DU on the outcomes of AUS implantation for PPI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of men who underwent AUS implantation for PPI were reviewed. Patients who had bladder outlet obstruction surgery before radical prostatectomy or AUS-related complications that required revision of AUS within three months were excluded. Patients were divided into two groups based on the preoperative urodynamic study including pressure flow study, a DU group, and a non-DU group. DU was defined as a bladder contractility index less than 100. The primary outcome was postoperative postvoid residual urine volume (PVR). The secondary outcomes included maximum flow rate (Qmax), postoperative satisfaction, and international prostate symptom score (IPSS). RESULTS: A total of 78 patients with PPI were assessed. The DU group consisted of 55 patients (70.5%) and the non-DU group comprised 23 patients (29.5%). Qmax was lower in the DU group than in the non-DU group and PVR was higher in the DU group as per a urodynamic study before AUS implantation. There was no significant difference in postoperative PVR between the two groups, although the Qmax after AUS implantation was significantly lower in the DU group. While the DU group showed significant improvements in Qmax, PVR, IPSS total score, IPSS storage subscore, and IPSS quality of life (QoL) score after AUS implantation, the non-DU group showed postoperative improvement in IPSS QoL score. CONCLUSION: There was no clinically significant impact of preoperative DU on the outcome of AUS implantation for PPI; thus, surgery can be safely performed in patients with PPI and DU.

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.

Biomechanical study of the male lower urinary tract: Simulation of internal and external sphincters dyssynergia.

Urethral sphincter dysfunction is an important cause of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The most effective treatment is the insertion of an artificial urethral sphincter (AUS), which relies to a large extent on the surgeon's experience. However, there is no quantitative standard for cuff tightness, resulting in frequent postoperative complications. This study aimed to investigate the effect of internal and external sphincter dyssynergia on urodynamic parameters in the lower urinary tract. A geometric model of male lower urinary tract tissue was constructed from collodion slices, accounting for the active behavior of the internal and external sphincters. Normal and dyssynergic internal and external sphincters (active sphincter behavior was individually injured by 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%) were simulated with fluid-structure interactions and changes in urethral stress, displacement, and urine flow rate were detected. We found that when the internal sphincter was injured by 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, urethral stress near the internal sphincter decreased by 8.3%, 15.6%, 24.3%, and 35.7%, respectively. Additionally, when the external sphincter was injured by 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%, urethral stress near the external sphincter was reduced by 13.3%, 24.3%, 38.6%, and 46.6%, respectively. Internal sphincter injury primarily affects positions near the internal sphincter and prostate, while external sphincter injury affects the area between the prostate and urethral outlet. These data could facilitate the standardized evaluation of internal and external sphincter dysfunction and lead to novel methods of preoperative assessment for AUS surgery.