PURPOSE: Despite the proven success and durability of the artificial urinary sphincter many patients elect an AdVance® sling as the initial treatment of male stress incontinence. We determined whether sling placement would change the outcome of an ensuing artificial urinary sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 29 patients with stress urinary incontinence after failed sling placement were treated with an AMS 800® artificial urinary sphincter between January 2006 and May 2011. A control group of 136 men with a primary artificial urinary sphincter was used for comparison. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included demographic variables, voiding diary, 24-hour pad weight, urodynamic characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss, complication rate, followup and cuff selection. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in urodynamic characteristics, operative variables or the complication rate. Pad use was reported as less than 1 pad daily in 96% of patients (28 of 29) with a secondary artificial urinary sphincter at 3-month followup. At 20.7 months 6.9% of patients (2 of 29) treated with an artificial urinary sphincter after the male sling required revision of the artificial urinary sphincter. The overall complication rate in the control group was 8.8% (12 of 136 patients) with a 2.2% infection rate (3 of 136). The overall complication rate in the artificial urinary sphincter plus male sling group was 6.9% (2 of 29 patients) with a 0% infection rate. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who require an artificial urinary sphincter after an initial male sling seem to fare as well as those who undergo primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation.
PURPOSE: Despite the proven success and durability of the artificial urinary sphincter many patients elect an AdVance® sling as the initial treatment of male stress incontinence. We determined whether sling placement would change the outcome of an ensuing artificial urinary sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 29 patients with stress urinary incontinence after failed sling placement were treated with an AMS 800® artificial urinary sphincter between January 2006 and May 2011. A control group of 136 men with a primary artificial urinary sphincter was used for comparison. Preoperative and postoperative evaluation included demographic variables, voiding diary, 24-hour pad weight, urodynamic characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss, complication rate, followup and cuff selection. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in urodynamic characteristics, operative variables or the complication rate. Pad use was reported as less than 1 pad daily in 96% of patients (28 of 29) with a secondary artificial urinary sphincter at 3-month followup. At 20.7 months 6.9% of patients (2 of 29) treated with an artificial urinary sphincter after the male sling required revision of the artificial urinary sphincter. The overall complication rate in the control group was 8.8% (12 of 136 patients) with a 2.2% infection rate (3 of 136). The overall complication rate in the artificial urinary sphincter plus male sling group was 6.9% (2 of 29 patients) with a 0% infection rate. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who require an artificial urinary sphincter after an initial male sling seem to fare as well as those who undergo primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation.
Authors: Matthew J Ziegelmann; Brian J Linder; Marcelino E Rivera; Boyd R Viers; Daniel S Elliott Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.862