OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and complications associated with single and double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: A retrospective study of 56 men with postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence who underwent either single (28 patients) or double (28 patients) cuff AUS placement was performed. Patients in each cohort were matched on the basis of preoperative pad use, risk factors for complications, and age. Patient selection was blinded relative to outcome. Continence, quality of life, and complications were assessed using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7), postoperative pad use, and chart review. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 years for each group. Daily pad use decreased from 7.7 to 1.1 in patients treated with a single-cuff AUS and from 7.8 to 0.7 in patients with a double-cuff AUS (P = 0.25). Complete continence (0 pads daily) was reported in 3 (11%) of 28 men with single-cuff and 12 (43%) of 28 men with double-cuff sphincters (P = 0.008). The IIQ-7 scores improved from 14.8 to 3.1 after single-cuff placement and from 16.3 to 2.5 after double-cuff placement (P = 0.03). With an average follow-up of 41.3 and 21.2 months for the single and double-cuff cohorts, respectively, five complications were reported in the single-cuff recipients and four in the double-cuff patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater rate of complete continence and improvement in the IIQ-7 were seen in men with double-cuff AUS compared with single-cuff devices. Additional study is needed to confirm the relative advantages of double-cuff insertion.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and complications associated with single and double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: A retrospective study of 56 men with postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence who underwent either single (28 patients) or double (28 patients) cuff AUS placement was performed. Patients in each cohort were matched on the basis of preoperative pad use, risk factors for complications, and age. Patient selection was blinded relative to outcome. Continence, quality of life, and complications were assessed using the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire Short Form (IIQ-7), postoperative pad use, and chart review. RESULTS: The mean age was 67 years for each group. Daily pad use decreased from 7.7 to 1.1 in patients treated with a single-cuff AUS and from 7.8 to 0.7 in patients with a double-cuff AUS (P = 0.25). Complete continence (0 pads daily) was reported in 3 (11%) of 28 men with single-cuff and 12 (43%) of 28 men with double-cuff sphincters (P = 0.008). The IIQ-7 scores improved from 14.8 to 3.1 after single-cuff placement and from 16.3 to 2.5 after double-cuff placement (P = 0.03). With an average follow-up of 41.3 and 21.2 months for the single and double-cuff cohorts, respectively, five complications were reported in the single-cuff recipients and four in the double-cuff patients. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly greater rate of complete continence and improvement in the IIQ-7 were seen in men with double-cuff AUS compared with single-cuff devices. Additional study is needed to confirm the relative advantages of double-cuff insertion.
Authors: Brian J Linder; Boyd R Viers; Matthew J Ziegelmann; Marcelino E Rivera; Daniel S Elliott Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2017 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.541