Abdominal vs Sub-Inguinal Placement of Pressure Regulating Balloon for Artificial Urinary Sphincter.

OBJECTIVES: To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion using an abdominal versus a sub-inguinal counterincision for pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all AUS placements by a single surgeon from 2010-2020. Demographic, clinical, and surgical details were obtained from chart review. The cohorts were divided by PRB placement technique (sub-inguinal, abdominal, and attempted sub-inguinal converted intra-operatively to abdominal ["conversion group"]). RESULTS: There were 182 AUS devices placed. The sub-inguinal approach was successfully completed in 132/144 (92%) and converted to abdominal PRB placement in 12/144 (8.3%). The risk of conversion was not increased by prior laparoscopically-assisted robotic prostatectomy (LRP) or radiotherapy (RT). Median operative time was 62, 75, and 77 minutes for sub-inguinal, abdominal, and conversion groups, respectively ( P = 0.30). Time to device activation was 25.0, 32.0, and 37.5 days for abdominal, sub-inguinal, and conversion groups, respectively (P<0.01). There were no bowel or bladder injuries and no PRB herniation in any group; however, there were five instances of pump migration superiorly, all in the sub-inguinal or conversion groups (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The sub-inguinal approach to PRB placement during AUS is safe and can be successfully completed over 90% of the time. However, it is not faster than the abdominal approach to PRB placement and it is associated with an increased risk of pump migration, though the latter may be confounded by the sub-dartos pouch for pump placement that was used in all sub-inguinal cases.

Wording of American Urological Association Guideline Recommendations Does Not Signal the Strength of Recommendation.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically analyze the wording of American Urological Association (AUA) clinical practice guidelines' recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We systematically identified all AUA guideline documents that used the current AUA framework and extracted the individual recommendations, their statement type, and their corresponding evidence level (if applicable), and analyzed the recommendation wording separating out the modal verbs (eg, should, may, or must) as well as the main verbs (eg, recommend, treat, perform). We performed descriptive statistics using SPSS Version 27. RESULTS: We included 18 documents with 754 distinct recommendations; the median number of recommendations per guideline was 36 (interquartile range: 29; 48.5). Expert opinion was the most used statement type (193; 25.6%), followed by clinical principle (156; 20.7%). Four-hundred-four recommendations were either strong, moderate, or conditional: 135 (17.9%), 187 (24.8%) and 83 (11.0%), respectively. Most recommendation statements (701; 93.0%) used modal verbs to express a level of obligation. Overall, "should" was the most employed modal verb used (73.9%), followed by "may" (17.6%) and "must" (1.5%). Both "may" and "should" were used in conjunction with all five statement types, whereas "must" was limited to strong recommendations and clinical principles. CONCLUSION: The wording of AUA recommendation statements does not signal the strength of recommendation and the intended level of obligation, which may represent a barrier to guideline implementation. More consistent wording of recommendations by strength may improve guideline understanding, uptake, and adherence.