The AdVance and AdVanceXP male sling in urinary incontinence: is there a difference?

PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling. METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi2-test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups. RESULTS: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage. CONCLUSIONS: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.

The TiLOOP® Male Sling: Did We Forejudge.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TiLOOP® male sling (pfm medical, Cologne, Germany) used in the treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a total of 34 patients with a TiLOOP® male sling. Perioperative complication rates were assessed and validated questionnaires were prospectively evaluated to assess quality of life and satisfaction rate. Outcome and complication rates were analysed by using descriptive statistics. Correlation of continence outcome and risk factors was performed with the chi-square test. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The majority of patients (70.6%) were diagnosed with mild or moderate male SUI. During surgery, one instance (2.9%) of intraoperative urethral injury was observed. There were no immediate postoperative complications. The mean follow-up time was 44.6 months. An improvement of male SUI was reported by 61.9% of the patients and 38.1% reported no change according the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The mean perineal pain score was 0.5 according to the international index of pain. CONCLUSIONS: The TiLOOP® is a safe treatment option for male SUI in our cohort with a low complication rate. However, the functional outcome of the TiLOOP® was inferior when compared to the outcome of the AdVance® male sling.

Targeting Moderate and Severe Male Stress Urinary Incontinence With Adjustable Male Slings and the Perineal Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Focus on Perioperative Complications and Device Explantations.

PURPOSE: To analyze perioperative complications and postoperative explantation rates for selected readjustable male sling systems and the perineal single-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-two male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in the study (n=127 adjustable male sling [n=95 Argus classic, n=32 Argus T], n=155 AUS). Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed. The explantation rates of the respective devices were assessed using the Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. A Kaplan-Meier curve was generated. Potential features associated with device explantation were analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model (P<0.05). RESULTS: We found significantly increased intraoperative complication rates after adjustable male sling implantation (15.9% [adjustable male sling] vs. 4.2% [AUS], P=0.003). The most frequent intraoperative complication was bladder perforation (n=17). Postoperative infection rates did not vary significantly between the respective devices (P=0.378). Device explantation rates were significantly higher after AUS implantation (9.7% [adjustable male sling] vs. 21.5% [AUS], P=0.030). In multivariate analysis, postoperative infection was a strong independent predictor of decreased device survival (odds ratio, 6.556; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complication profiles vary between adjustable male slings and AUS. Explantation rates are lower after adjustable male sling implantation. Any kind of postoperative infections are independent predictors of decreased device survival. There is no significant effect of the experience of the implanting institution on device survival.

Antibiotic Coating of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AMS 800): Is it Worthwhile?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of the antibiotic coating InhibiZone on the infection and explantation rates of the AMS 800 in comparison to the AMS 800 without InhibiZone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 305 patients with an AMS 800 in a multicenter cohort study. Patients were subsequently divided into InhibiZone and without InhibiZone-coated groups. Infection and explantation rates were analyzed by univariate and consecutively by multivariate logistic regression adjusted to variable risk factors. The infection-free interval was estimated by Kaplan-Meier plot and compared by the log-rank test. A P value below .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: We identified 47 patients with InhibiZone and 258 without InhibiZone coating. In univariate analysis, we could not identify a significant difference in infection (P = .932) or explantation (P = .715) rates between the groups. In multivariate analysis, impaired wound healing (P = .008) and urethral erosion (P < .001) were independent predictors for infection. The InhibiZone coating neither demonstrated significant influence on the infection rate (P = .534) nor on the explantation rate (P = .214). There was no significant difference in estimated infection-free survival between the groups (P = .265). CONCLUSION: The antibiotic coating of the AMS 800 had no significant impact on infection or explantation rates in our cohort.

Risk Factors for Failure of Male Slings and Artificial Urinary Sphincters: Results from a Large Middle European Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: We analysed the impact of predefined risk factors: age, diabetes, history of pelvic irradiation, prior surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), prior urethral stricture, additional procedure during SUI surgery, duration of incontinence, ASA-classification and cause for incontinence on failure and complications in male SUI surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 506 patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and 513 patients with a male sling (MS) in a multicenter cohort study. Complication rates were correlated to the risk factors in univariate analysis. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression adjusted to the risk factors was performed. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A history of pelvic irradiation was an independent risk factor for explantation in AUS (p < 0.001) and MS (p = 0.018). Moreover, prior urethral stricture (p = 0.036) and higher ASA-classification (p = 0.039) were positively correlated with explantation in univariate analysis for AUS. Urethral erosion was correlated with prior urethral stricture (p < 0.001) and a history of pelvic irradiation (p < 0.001) in AUS. Furthermore, infection was correlated with additional procedures during SUI surgery in univariate analysis (p = 0.037) in MS. CONCLUSIONS: We first identified the correlation of higher ASA-classification and explantation in AUS. Nevertheless, only a few novel risk factors had a significant influence on the failure of MS or AUS.

Complications and Short-Term Explantation Rate Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation: Results from a Large Middle European Multi-Institutional Case Series.

UNLABELLED: Background/Aims/Objectives: To analyze perioperative complication and short-term explantation rates after perineal or penoscrotal single-cuff and double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in a large middle European multi-institutional patient cohort. METHODS: 467 male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a perineal single-cuff (n = 152), penoscrotal single-cuff (n = 99), or perineal double-cuff (n = 216) AUS between 2010 and 2012. Postoperative complications and 6-month explantation rates were assessed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and a multiple logistic regression model were used (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Compared to perineal single-cuff AUS, penoscrotal single-cuff implantation led to significantly increased short-term explantation rates (8.6% (perineal) vs. 19.2% (penoscrotal), p = 0.019). The postoperative infection rate was significantly higher after double-cuff compared to single-cuff implantation (6.0% (single-cuff) vs. 13.9% (double-cuff), p = 0.019). The short-term explantation rate after primary double-cuff placement was 6.5% (p = 0.543 vs. perineal single-cuff). In multivariate analysis, the penoscrotal approach (p = 0.004), intraoperative complications (p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding (p = 0.011), and perioperative infection (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for short-term explantation. CONCLUSIONS: Providing data from a large contemporary multi-institutional patient cohort from high-volume and low-volume institutions, our results reflect the current standard of care in middle Europe. We indicate that the penoscrotal approach is an independent risk factor for increased short-term explantation rates.

Efficacy and safety of the ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence: lessons learned.

PURPOSE: To analyze efficacy and safety for the ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter in a multicenter case series. METHODS: Thirteen male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter device between 2010 and 2012 in three international continence reference centers. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo scale. Re-hospitalization and explantation rates, and functional outcome were assessed. Inner-group and between-group differences were analyzed using Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's exact test whenever indicated. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess device survival. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There were no intraoperative complications. Median follow-up was 13.5 months. In this period, four device defects (30.8 %) could be observed, being the main cause for device explantation, followed by device infection (15.4 %), non-resolvable pain (7.7 %), and urethral erosion (7.7 %). There were no Clavien IV or Clavien V complications. Overall explantation rate was 61.5 %. Mean time-to-explantation was 279 ± 308 days. There was no significant influence of previous irradiation and previous invasive incontinence therapy (p = 0.587 and p = 0.685, respectively). Mean daily pad usage decreased from 5.8 ± 1.5 to 2.4 ± 2.1 (p = 0.066). One patient (7.7 %) did not use any pads. Social continence (0-1 pads) was achieved in 15.4 % of the patients. CONCLUSION: This is the most current study that is investigating the outcome after ZSI375 implantation in a multicenter case series. Based on our results, explantation rates after ZSI375 implantation are high and efficacy rates seem lower than previously described. Addressing this high failure rate, the system has undergone a two-step modification in the meantime.