PURPOSE: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with the artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence, comparing the outcome of those patients who did and did not receive previous radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 86 patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence treated with implantation of artificial urinary sphincter includes 58 who did not (group 1) and 28 who did (group 2) receive prior radiation therapy during treatment of prostate carcinoma. In group 2 radiation was the primary treatment followed by salvage prostatectomy in 5 patients, adjuvant after radical retropubic prostatectomy 20 and after transurethral prostatic resection 3. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 68.3 +/- 6.6, and 69.7 +/- 6.6 years in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Activation of the sphincter was 4 weeks from the date of surgery, and deactivation at night was not adopted in either group. Patients were followed for a mean period of 31 +/- 23, and 36 +/- 21 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Comparison of continence, urodynamic testing, complication rate, overall satisfaction and quality of life was done between both groups. RESULTS: Reoperation was required in 13 (22.4%) patients in group 1 and 7 (25%) group 2 (p >0.05). Urethral atrophy and/or inadequate compression was seen in 8 (14%) and 4 (14%) patients, and urethral erosion was observed in 1 (2%) and 2 (7%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.5). Infection of the device was observed in 4 (7%) patients in group 1 but none group 2 (p >0.05). Continence status was similar in both groups, with 60% and 64% of patients who wore 0 to 1 pad daily in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.05). Urgency with or without urge incontinence was reported after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in 47%, and 44% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.05). On a visual analog scale (range 0 to 5, 0-not satisfied at all, 5-extremely satisfied) for satisfaction with the results of the artificial urinary sphincter 86% and 91% of patients reported 4 or greater in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The artificial urinary sphincter has a similar outcome in patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence whether or not they have received previous radiation therapy. No special precaution needs to be adopted for the men in group 2 with post-prostatectomy incontinence considering implantation of artificial urinary sphincter.
PURPOSE: We retrospectively reviewed our experience with the artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence, comparing the outcome of those patients who did and did not receive previous radiation therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 86 patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence treated with implantation of artificial urinary sphincter includes 58 who did not (group 1) and 28 who did (group 2) receive prior radiation therapy during treatment of prostate carcinoma. In group 2 radiation was the primary treatment followed by salvage prostatectomy in 5 patients, adjuvant after radical retropubic prostatectomy 20 and after transurethral prostatic resection 3. Mean patient age plus or minus standard deviation was 68.3 +/- 6.6, and 69.7 +/- 6.6 years in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Activation of the sphincter was 4 weeks from the date of surgery, and deactivation at night was not adopted in either group. Patients were followed for a mean period of 31 +/- 23, and 36 +/- 21 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Comparison of continence, urodynamic testing, complication rate, overall satisfaction and quality of life was done between both groups. RESULTS: Reoperation was required in 13 (22.4%) patients in group 1 and 7 (25%) group 2 (p >0.05). Urethral atrophy and/or inadequate compression was seen in 8 (14%) and 4 (14%) patients, and urethral erosion was observed in 1 (2%) and 2 (7%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.5). Infection of the device was observed in 4 (7%) patients in group 1 but none group 2 (p >0.05). Continence status was similar in both groups, with 60% and 64% of patients who wore 0 to 1 pad daily in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.05). Urgency with or without urge incontinence was reported after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in 47%, and 44% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.05). On a visual analog scale (range 0 to 5, 0-not satisfied at all, 5-extremely satisfied) for satisfaction with the results of the artificial urinary sphincter 86% and 91% of patients reported 4 or greater in groups 1 and 2, respectively (p >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The artificial urinary sphincter has a similar outcome in patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence whether or not they have received previous radiation therapy. No special precaution needs to be adopted for the men in group 2 with post-prostatectomy incontinence considering implantation of artificial urinary sphincter.
Authors: Valentin Maurer; Phillip Marks; Roland Dahlem; Clemens Rosenbaum; Christian P Meyer; Silke Riechardt; Margit Fisch; Tim Ludwig Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: James B McGeady; Jack W McAninch; Mathew D Truesdale; Sarah D Blaschko; Stacey Kenfield; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 7.450