Steven J Hudak1, Allen F Morey. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas 75390-9110, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We report our initial clinical experience with the new 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all men who underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement done by a single surgeon since September 2009. A perineal approach was used to ensure cuff placement around the most proximal corpus spongiosum after precise spongiosal measurement with a redesigned measuring tape. Clinical factors and cuff sizes were analyzed. RESULTS: During the 14-month study period 45 of 67 patients (67%) with an artificial urinary sphincter received the 3.5 cm cuff with no difference between primary and revision surgery (73% vs 58%, p = 0.29). Transcorporal cuff placement was reserved for 8 select patients (12%) after prior artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion or complex urethroplasty. A tandem cuff artificial urinary sphincter was not used. Erectile dysfunction (89% vs 77%, p = 0.28) and prior radiation (47% vs 27%, p = 0.12) were more common in men who received a 3.5 vs a 4.0 cm or greater cuff. A similar proportion of men with a 3.5 cm vs a larger cuff (4 of 45 or 9% vs 2 of 22 or 9%) required explantation for infection and/or erosion. CONCLUSIONS: At our center the 3.5 cm cuff has become the predominant size used for primary and revision artificial urinary sphincter placement. Liberal use of the 3.5 cm cuff has simplified and improved artificial urinary sphincter placement without additional morbidity.
PURPOSE: We report our initial clinical experience with the new 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the records of all men who underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement done by a single surgeon since September 2009. A perineal approach was used to ensure cuff placement around the most proximal corpus spongiosum after precise spongiosal measurement with a redesigned measuring tape. Clinical factors and cuff sizes were analyzed. RESULTS: During the 14-month study period 45 of 67 patients (67%) with an artificial urinary sphincter received the 3.5 cm cuff with no difference between primary and revision surgery (73% vs 58%, p = 0.29). Transcorporal cuff placement was reserved for 8 select patients (12%) after prior artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion or complex urethroplasty. A tandem cuff artificial urinary sphincter was not used. Erectile dysfunction (89% vs 77%, p = 0.28) and prior radiation (47% vs 27%, p = 0.12) were more common in men who received a 3.5 vs a 4.0 cm or greater cuff. A similar proportion of men with a 3.5 cm vs a larger cuff (4 of 45 or 9% vs 2 of 22 or 9%) required explantation for infection and/or erosion. CONCLUSIONS: At our center the 3.5 cm cuff has become the predominant size used for primary and revision artificial urinary sphincter placement. Liberal use of the 3.5 cm cuff has simplified and improved artificial urinary sphincter placement without additional morbidity.
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: 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
Authors: Michael T Davenport; Abdulhadi M Akhtar; Nabeel A Shakir; Adam S Baumgarten; Yooni A Yi; Rachel L Bergeson; Ellen E Ward; Allen F Morey Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-02
Authors: Felix Cheung; Ali Fathollahi; Emily Vertosick; Thomas R Jarvis; Darren Katz; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: BJU Int Date: 2018-08-05 Impact factor: 5.588