Association between Previous Pelvic Radiation and All-Cause and Cause-Specific Failure of Replacement Artificial Urinary Sphincters.

PURPOSE: In order to accurately characterize how a history of radiation therapy affects the lifespan of replacement artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs), all possible sources of device failure must be considered. We assessed the competing risks of device failure based on radiation history in men with replacement AUSs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified men who had a replacement AUS in a single institutional, retrospective database. To assess survival from all-cause device failure based on radiation history and other factors, we conducted Kaplan-Meier, Cox proportional-hazards and competing risks analyses. RESULTS: Among 247 men who had a first replacement AUS, men with a history of radiation had shorter time to all-cause device failure (median 1.4 vs 3.5 years for men with radiation vs without radiation history, p=0.02). On multivariable Cox-proportional hazards analysis, previous radiation was associated with increased risk of all-cause device failure (HR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.30-3.43, p=0.002). On multivariable cause-specific hazards analysis, prior radiation was associated with a higher risk of erosion/infection (HR: 7.57, 95% CI: 2.27-25.2, p <0.001), but was not associated with risk of urethral atrophy (p=0.5) or mechanical failure (p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Among men with a replacement AUS, a history of pelvic radiation was associated with shorter time to device failure of any cause. Radiation was also specifically associated with a sevenfold increase in the risk of erosion or infection of replacement AUS, but not with urethral atrophy or mechanical failure. Patients with a replacement AUS should be appropriately counseled on how radiation history may impact outcomes of future revisions.

Characterizing patient experiences with repeat artificial urinary sphincter revisions through quantitative surveys and qualitative patient interviews.

Background: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement remains the gold-standard treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), despite their need for periodic surgical revision. Objective: To understand the experiences of patients who undergo repeat AUS revisions. Design: Mixed design including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews for thematic analysis. Methods: Men with ⩾2 revisions were collected from a single-institution, retrospective database of AUS patients. Participants were interviewed about their prostatectomy, incontinence, AUS placement, and revisions. A survey was administered utilizing validated tools (e.g., Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7) for quantitative analysis. Interview transcripts were used for qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Of 26 respondents, 20 completed the interview. Twenty-three men completed the survey. The mean DRS score for prostatectomy was 24 (standard deviation (SD) = 27), indicating low regret. Median Incontinence Impact Questionnaire score was 54 (SD = 27), with 70% of participants describing their PPUI as "severe." Participants experienced a significant decrease in daily pad usage with AUS placement (5.5 pre-AUS vs 1.4 post-AUS, p < 0.0001). Qualitative analysis revealed themes involving prostatectomy urgency, physician-patient relationships, expectation setting, and quality of follow-up. Most participants (96%) were satisfied with their initial AUS placement and endorsed a positive relationship with their urologist. However, 22% of participants were unaware of device limitations, including the need for revision. Some participants (26%) were uncertain of the status of their AUS, while some participants (35%) desired improved follow-up. Conclusions: Initial improvement and positive experiences with urologists motivate patients to undergo AUS repeat revision. Urologists should emphasize the limitations of the AUS before placement and follow up with patients to evaluate their needs for future care.