Single center experience and long-term outcomes of implantable devices ACT and Pro-ACT (Uromedica, Irvin, CA, USA) - Adjustable continence Therapy for treatment of stress urinary incontinence.

PURPOSE: In this study, we aimed at evaluating the long-term adjustable peri-urethral balloons (PUB) durability in both male and female with neurogenic or non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Each consecutive patient who underwent surgery for PUB placement before 2008 was included in this study. A PUB was proposed for patients with refractory to perineal reeducation stress urinary incontinence (SUI) caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency. There were no exclusion criteria. Demographic, clinical and perioperative data were collected retrospectively from our clinical follow-up notes. RESULTS: A total of 177 patients were included in the study. Median [IQR] follow-up was 5 years [1.8-11.2]. The 3 main causes of SUI were radical prostatectomy (n=82, 46.3%), idiopathic intrinsic sphincter deficiency (n=55, 31.1%) and neurogenic sphincter deficiency (n=32, 18.1%). Complete continence (no pad necessary) was achieved for 109 patients (61.6%). At the end of the follow-up, the PUB global survival rate was 47.5% (Fig. 1). Median [IQR] PUB survival without removal was 57.8 months [42.3-81.7]. PUB survival without failure rate was 68.4% accounting for a median [IQR] survival duration of 116.9 months [86.2-176.9] CONCLUSION: In this study, we evidenced acceptable long-term efficiency and survival of PUB in the management of SUI in both neurogenic and non-neurogenic population. Given those results it could be a good alternative to AUS on unfit or unwilling population.

A fresh "slant" on modified Mitchell bladder neck reconstruction: A contemporary single-institution experience.

Introduction: Patients with neurogenic urinary incontinence due to an incompetent outlet may be offered bladder neck reconstruction, but the quest for the perfect surgical-outlet procedure continues. Our aim was to characterize continence and complications after modified Mitchell urethral lengthening/bladder neck reconstruction (MMBNR) with sling and to introduce a modification of exposure that facilitates subsequent steps of MMBNR. Methods: A single-institution, retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent primary MMBNR between May 2011 and July 2019 was performed. Data on demographics, urodynamic testing, operative details, unanticipated events, continence, bladder changes, and additional procedures were collected. A 2013 modification that permits identification of the incompetent bladder neck prior to urethral unroofing was applied to the last 17 patients. The trigone and bladder neck are exposed via an oblique low anterolateral incision on the bladder. Ureteral reimplantation is not routinely performed. Focal incision of the endopelvic fascia after posterior plate creation limits breadth of blunt dissection for sling placement. Descriptive statistics were utilized. Results: A total of 25 patients (13 females) had MMBNR with sling at a median age of 10 years [interquartile range (IQR) 8-11]. Bladder augmentation was performed concurrently in 14/25 (56%) patients. At a median of 5.0 (IQR 3.9-7.5) years follow-up after MMBNR, 9/11 (82%) without bladder augmentation and 13/14 (93%) with bladder augmentation had no leakage per urethra during the day without further continence procedures. Of the three patients with persistent incontinence, two achieved continence with bladder wall Botox injection (overall continence 24/25, 96%). New and recurrent vesicoureteral reflux was noted in five patients and one patient, respectively. Two patients required subsequent bladder augmentation for pressures and one other will likely require it. None have required bladder neck closure or revision. Conclusion: MMBNR with sling provides promising continence per urethra in neurogenic bladder with low need for secondary continence procedures. Ongoing modifications may achieve elusive total continence.