Transcorporal vs. bulbar artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients with fragile urethra.

PURPOSE: To compare transcorporal vs bulbar artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with fragile urethra and to investigate the risk factors of AUS explantation in this population. METHODS: The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2004 and 2020 in 16 centers were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was device explantation-free survival. Only patients with a fragile urethra were included in the present analysis. Fragile urethra was defined as a urethra carrying a high risk of cuff erosion because of prior radiotherapy and/or history of AUS explantation and/or history of urethral stricture surgery. The patients were divided in two groups according to the implantation site: bulbar vs transcorporal. RESULTS: 464 patients were included for analysis. 88 patients underwent a transcorporal AUS implantation and 376 underwent a bulbar AUS implantation. Explantation-free survival was similar in both groups (estimated 5-year explantation free survival rates 55.3% vs. 58.4%; p=0.98). In the subgroup of patients with a history of previous AUS explantation, transcorporal approach tended to bring longer explantation-free survival (2-year explantation-free survival: 61.9% vs. 58.2%; p=0.096). In multivariate analysis, the only risk factor of shorter explantation-free survival was the history of previous AUS explantation (HR=2.65; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Transcorporal AUS implantation was not associated with longer explantation-free survival. History of previous AUS explantation was the only risk factor associated with shorter explantation-free survival and this subgroup of patients may be the only one to draw benefits of transcorporal AUS implantation.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision in Nonneurological Male Patients.

PURPOSE: The main objective of this study was to assess the prevalence and risk factors of male artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) mechanical failures and nonmechanical failures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of all male patients who underwent AUS implantation between 2004 and 2020 in 16 centers were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI) were excluded as well as revisions/explantations due to infections and/or erosions. The causes of revision were divided into mechanical failures (fluid loss or malfunction from any components of the AUS), nonmechanical failures (urethral atrophy, recurrence/persistence of SUI despite normally functioning device) and other (pump malposition, balloon herniation, hematoma, pain). Failure-free survival analysis was performed both for general and specific causes of revision. Predictors of mechanical and nonmechanical failures were determined by Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 1,020 patients met the inclusion criteria. After a median followup of 20 months, the estimated 5-year and 10-year overall revision-free survival was 60% and 40%, respectively. There were 214 AUS revisions: 59 (27.6%) for mechanical failures, 121 (56.5%) for nonmechanical failures and 34 (15.9%) other causes of revision. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, larger cuff size was the only predictor of overall revisions (HR=1.04 [1.01-1.07]; p=0.01) and revision for nonmechanical failure (HR=1.05 [1.02-1.09]; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Half of the male AUS patients underwent device revision within the first 10 years after implantation. Nonmechanical failures are the primary cause of AUS revision in nonneurological men. Larger cuff size appears to be the main determinant of AUS revision risk.