Primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter using the perineal and penoscrotal approaches: Functional results and assessment of reoperative procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the standard treatment for severe stress urinary incontinence in men. While the perineal access is considered the gold standard, some authors have proposed penoscrotal AUS in order to facilitate the procedure. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the duration of survival without revision surgery (SSRC) according to the surgical approach for primary implantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 1179 patients implanted in France between 1991 and 2020 with an AMS 800 AUS were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 762 men were implanted perineally (VP) and 417 penoscrotally (VPS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 20 vs. 25months respectively. The groups were equivalent overall, apart from the use of anticoagulants (11% VP vs. 6.3% VPS P=0.014). In our population, 54% patients were considered as "dry" in the case of VPS vs. 42% for VP. There was no significant difference in terms of survival time without reoperation, revision, replacement or explantation. In univariate and multivariate analysis, age over 70years was predictive of more reinterventions, whereas the use of a 4.5cm cuff was protective, with hazard ratios of 1.42 (P=0.001) and 0.78 (P=0.04), respectively. CONCLUSION: The penoscrotal approach does not appear to be associated with more complications, has good functional results and no significant difference in reoperation-free survival. A prospective multicenter non-inferiority study could be of interest to confirm our findings.

[First-line management of infertile couple. Guidelines for clinical practice of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2022]. / Prise en charge de première intention du couple infertile : mise à jour des RPC 2010 du CNGOF.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2010 CNGOF clinical practice guidelines for the first-line management of infertile couples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five major themes (first-line assessment of the infertile woman, first-line assessment of the infertile man, prevention of exposure to environmental factors, initial management using ovulation induction regimens, first-line reproductive surgery) were identified, enabling 28 questions to be formulated using the Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) format. Each question was addressed by a working group that had carried out a systematic review of the literature since 2010, and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) methodology to assess the quality of the scientific data on which the recommendations were based. These recommendations were then validated during a national review by 40 national experts. RESULTS: The fertility work-up is recommended to be prescribed according to the woman's age: after one year of infertility before the age of 35 and after 6months after the age of 35. A couple's initial infertility work-up includes a single 3D ultrasound scan with antral follicle count, assessment of tubal permeability by hysterography or HyFOSy, anti-Mullerian hormone assay prior to assisted reproduction, and vaginal swabbing for vaginosis. If the 3D ultrasound is normal, hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy are not recommended as first-line procedures. Chlamydia trachomatis serology does not have the necessary performance to predict tubal patency. Post-coital testing is no longer recommended. In men, spermogram, spermocytogram and spermoculture are recommended as first-line tests. If the spermogram is normal, it is not recommended to check the spermogram. If the spermogram is abnormal, an examination by an andrologist, an ultrasound scan of the testicles and hormonal test are recommended. Based on the data in the literature, we are unable to recommend a BMI threshold for women that would contraindicate medical management of infertility. A well-balanced Mediterranean-style diet, physical activity and the cessation of smoking and cannabis are recommended for infertile couples. For fertility concern, it is recommended to limit alcohol consumption to less than 5 glasses a week. If the infertility work-up reveals no abnormalities, ovulation induction is not recommended for normo-ovulatory women. If intrauterine insemination is indicated based on an abnormal infertility work-up, gonadotropin stimulation and ovulation monitoring are recommended to avoid multiple pregnancies. If the infertility work-up reveals no abnormality, laparoscopy is probably recommended before the age of 30 to increase natural pregnancy rates. In the case of hydrosalpinx, surgical management is recommended prior to ART, with either salpingotomy or salpingectomy depending on the tubal score. It is recommended to operate on polyps>10mm, myomas 0, 1, 2 and synechiae prior to ART. The data in the literature do not allow us to systematically recommend asymptomatic uterine septa and isthmoceles as first-line surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on strong agreement between experts, we have been able to formulate updated recommendations in 28 areas concerning the initial management of infertile couples.

Efficacy, Safety, and Reoperation-free Survival of Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Non-neurological Male Patients over 75 Years of Age.

Background: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is a gold standard treatment in male stress urinary incontinence but remains poorly used in elderly patients. Objective: To assess the efficacy, safety, and reoperation-free survival of AUS implantation in male patients over 75 yr of age. Design setting and participants: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all 1233 non-neurological male AUS implantations between 2005 and 2020 at 13 French centers. We compared 330 patients ≥75 yr old (GROUP75+) with 903 patients <75 yr old (GROUP75-) at the time of AUS implantation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Our primary endpoint was social continence at 3 mo defined as the use of one or fewer pad daily. We used Kaplan-Meier analyses to assess reoperation-free survival. We sought factors of erosion using logistic regression. Results and limitations: Early postoperative continence was comparable in both groups (74.4% vs 80.1%, p = 0.114). We observed a higher rate of postoperative complications in GROUP75+ (18.8% vs 12.6%, p = 0.014), but the complications were more frequently of low grade in GROUP75+ (p = 0.025). The overall reoperation-free survival was similar (p = 0.076) after a median follow-up of 2 yr. However, patients in GROUP75+ had poorer explantation-free survival (p < 0.0001). A history of radiotherapy was a predictive factor of erosion (odds ratio [OR] = 5.31, p < 0.01), but age was not (OR = 1.08, p = 0.87). Unfortunately, our dataset did not include a systematic geriatric evaluation. Conclusions: AUS in elderly patients appears to be an effective option to treat stress urinary incontinence. However, we observed more postoperative complications and explantations, although age was not associated with the onset of erosion. A prospective study is required to determine whether a geriatric evaluation would be an effective strategy to select patients before surgery. Patient summary: In this study, we looked at outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter in elderly men in a large population. We found satisfying efficacy but slightly more postoperative complications and device infections.

[Multidisciplinary meetings in pelvic floor disease in women: A national survey by the CUROPF among French urologists]. / Réunion de concertation pluridisciplinaire en pelvipérinéologie en France : résultats d'une enquête nationale du CUROPF auprès des urologues français.

INTRODUCTION: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MTMs) in the field of pelvic floor diseases in women tend to generalize, as they are required as mandatory before mid-urethral sling implantation or sacrocolpopexy by recent decrees published by the French health authorities. However, access to these meetings is variable in the French territory. The goal of the present study was to describe the existence and the settings of these kinds of meetings in France. MATERIEL AND METHODS: An on-line survey was conducted between June and July 2020 (stage 1) then between November 2021 and January 2022 (stage 2). A 15-item questionnaire was sent to all members of the Association française d'urologie (AFU). A descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-two completed questionnaires were sent back during stage 1 and 158 during stage 2. Early 2022, 61.3% of respondents had access to a pelviperineology MTM, with important difference according to geographical areas. Main activity of MTMs was case discussion of complex situations (68% of meetings). At the end of 2021, 22% of the respondents declared willing to stop partially or totally their pelviperineology activity, given the new regulations set in place by the authorities. CONCLUSION: Despite being absolutely mandatory in current clinical practice, MTMs in pelvic floor disease have spread slowly. MTMs implementation was still insufficient in 2022, and variable on the French territory. Some urologists declare having no access to such resources and about 1 out of 5 were considering to voluntary stop of decrease significantly their activity in this difficult context.

Hot Topics of the Past Decade: Evolutions and Revolutions in Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

The past decade has seen the emergence of numerous alternatives to traditional surgery for benign prostatic obstruction. Further trials are ongoing and will probably change our views on management of male lower urinary tract symptoms.

Early Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Stress Urinary Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy or Benign Prostatic Obstruction Surgery: Results of a Large Multicentric Study.

BACKGROUND: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for the management of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in the male population. While outcomes of this device in postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) are widely described, those obtained for incontinence after benign prostatic obstruction (BPO) surgery remains poorly explored. OBJECTIVE: To compare continence outcomes after AUS implantation in a PPI population with those obtained in men incontinent after BPO surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective review of all cases of AUS implantation between 2005 and 2020 in 16 different French centers was conducted. Only patients with primary implantation whose indication was moderate to severe SUI after prostatectomy or BPO surgery were included (excluding those with a history of radiation therapy, brachytherapy, cystectomy, high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy, or neurogenic disease). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was the rate of social continence (zero or one pad per day) at 3 mo. Complications were also noted within 90 d of implantation. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 417 patients were included in the PPI group and 50 in the BPO surgery group. Social continence rates at 3 mo were similar between the groups (79% vs 72%, p = 0.701). Complication rate was significantly higher in the BPO group (8% vs 18%, p = 0.044). The same was found for the Clavien-Dindo type 2 complication rate (20.6% vs 44.4%, p = 0.026). The retrospective nature and lack of precise definition of incontinence are the main limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: This multicentric study strengthens the position of AUS as gold standard for SUI after radical prostatectomy. Comparable efficacy results were found for incontinence after BPO surgery, with nevertheless a higher rate of complications. PATIENT SUMMARY: Artificial urinary sphincter represents the gold standard for the treatment of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence. Efficacy results are comparable between postprostatectomy incontinence and incontinence after benign prostatic obstruction surgery.

Impact of radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients: A multicenter study.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of an history of radiation therapy on the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in male patients. METHODS: The charts of all patients who underwent AUS implantation for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate surgery in thirteen centers between 2004 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We excluded patients with neurogenic SUI. Continence rates and incidence of complications, revision and cuff erosion were evaluated. The outcomes in irradiated men were compared to those of non irradiated men. RESULTS: A total of 1277 patients who had an AUS met the inclusion criteria with a median age of 70 years, of which 437 had an history of prior radiotherapy. There was no difference in comorbidities. In irradiated patients, postoperative social continence, urethral atrophy and infection rates were respectively 75.6%, 2.4% and 9.5% and 76.8%, 5.4%, and 5.8% in nonirradiated men (respectively, p = 0.799, p = 0.128, p = 0.148). There were more urethral erosion in irradiated male patients. After a mean follow up of 36.8 months, the explantation free survival was poorer in irradiated patients (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that pelvic radiotherapy before AUS adversely affect device survival with and increased greater occurrence of infection-erosion and therefore of explantation.

State of the art on stress incontinence management after benign prostatic obstruction surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is mostly seen after prostate surgery (radical prostatectomy or benign prostatic obstruction [BPO] relief). As new surgical techniques (laser, endoscopic enucleation) have been dramatically expanded in the past decade, a focus on postoperative SUI is necessary to provide the best management in this iatrogenic situation. RECENT FINDINGS: Surgery is the main option for curative management of SUI after BPO as no oral medication is recommended. Preoperative work-up is mandatory to assess concomitant bladder dysfunction. All available surgical options (peri-urethral injections, periurethral balloons, various male slings, and artificial urinary sphincter) have been studied, but the level of evidence is very low. In this setting, SUI after BPO management is widely inspired from post-PR SUI management, mainly based on clinical experience. SUMMARY: The available literature regarding persistent SUI after BPO relief is very scarce and further studies are warranted in this specific population.

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.

Efficacy and safety of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies in older patients for first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: immunotherapy became the first line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). Nevertheless, a better understanding of the specificities of targeted therapies (TT) in the elderly population could be helpful in order to improve the management of mRCC in this population. The aim of this retrospective study was to assess efficacy and safety of sunitinib and sorafenib used as first-line TT in 70 years older patients compared to younger patients. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected for all consecutive mRCC patients receiving first line TT treatment by sunitinib or sorafenib for mRCC from January 2006 to November 2017. Patients were divided into two groups according to the age using a cut-off at 70 years old. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. RESULTS: In total, 147 patients were included; 94 (63.9%) were <70 and 53 (36.1%) were 70 years old or more. First line TT used was sunitinib in 123 (83.7%) patients or sorafenib in 24 (16.3%) patients. Median PFS was 8 months for elderly patients vs. 6 in younger group (P=0.68). Median OS were 26 vs. 36 months (P=0.08). Severe induced toxicity was more frequent among elderly patients: 34 (64.2%) vs. 46 patients (48.9%) (P=0.07). Rate of treatment discontinuation due to toxicity was 22 patients (23.4%) in younger group vs. 28 patients (52.8%) in the elderly group (P=0.0005). Results were similar in the 2 groups regarding the type of toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest similar efficacy of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents as first-line treatment for mRCC among younger and older patients with an age cut-off of 70 years. Safety results suggest that these drugs can be safely used for older patients with a need of caution regarding toxicity prevention.

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.