OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy, with and with no history of previous irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 98 men (mean age 68 years) with urinary incontinence after prostatectomy for prostate cancer (85 radical, 13 transurethral resection) who had an AUS implanted. Twenty-two of the patients had received adjuvant external beam irradiation before AUS implantation. Over a mean (range) follow-up of 46 (5-118) months, the complication and surgical revision rates were recorded and compared between irradiated and unirradiated patients. The two groups were also compared for the resolution of incontinence and satisfaction, assessed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, surgical revision was equally common in irradiated (36%) and unirradiated (24%) patients. After activating the AUS, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion requiring surgical revision were more common in irradiated patients (41% vs. 11%; P < 0.05); 70% of patients reported a significant improvement in continence, regardless of previous irradiation. Patient satisfaction remained high, with > 80% of patients stating that they would undergo surgery again and/or recommend it to others, despite previous irradiation and/or the need for surgical revision. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher complication and surgical revision rates in patients who have an AUS implanted and have a history of previous irradiation, the long-term continence and patient satisfaction appear not to be adversely affected.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy, with and with no history of previous irradiation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 98 men (mean age 68 years) with urinary incontinence after prostatectomy for prostate cancer (85 radical, 13 transurethral resection) who had an AUS implanted. Twenty-two of the patients had received adjuvant external beam irradiation before AUS implantation. Over a mean (range) follow-up of 46 (5-118) months, the complication and surgical revision rates were recorded and compared between irradiated and unirradiated patients. The two groups were also compared for the resolution of incontinence and satisfaction, assessed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall, surgical revision was equally common in irradiated (36%) and unirradiated (24%) patients. After activating the AUS, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion requiring surgical revision were more common in irradiated patients (41% vs. 11%; P < 0.05); 70% of patients reported a significant improvement in continence, regardless of previous irradiation. Patient satisfaction remained high, with > 80% of patients stating that they would undergo surgery again and/or recommend it to others, despite previous irradiation and/or the need for surgical revision. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher complication and surgical revision rates in patients who have an AUS implanted and have a history of previous irradiation, the long-term continence and patient satisfaction appear not to be adversely affected.
Authors: Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Markus Grabbert; Christian G Stief; Micaela Pavlicek; Ricarda M Bauer Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-08-08 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Matthew J Ziegelmann; Brian J Linder; Boyd R Viers; Laureano J Rangel; Marcelino E Rivera; Daniel S Elliott Journal: Turk J Urol Date: 2018-11-26
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
Authors: William O Brant; Bradley A Erickson; Sean P Elliott; Christopher Powell; Nejd Alsikafi; Christopher McClung; Jeremy B Myers; Bryan B Voelzke; Thomas G Smith; Joshua A Broghammer Journal: Urology Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 2.649