OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the presence of a previously implanted suburethral sling for post-prostatic surgery incontinence influences the outcomes of subsequent AUS implantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study comparing 15 patients who underwent AUS placement after suburethral sling failure between November 2004 and December 2009 to 15 patients who underwent AUS placement as first-line treatment during the same period. Demographic characteristics, preoperative assessment of urinary incontinence and technique of implantation of the AUS were similar in the both arms. A USP(®) continence questionnaire was sent to patients by mail. Success was defined as a subjective improvement of the incontinence in patients using less than one pad per day. RESULTS: No perioperative incidents were noted in either arm. Mean operative time, the size of implanted cuffs, duration of catheterisation, length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate, as well as the rate of surgical revision, were similar in both arms. The follow-up was slightly lower in the first arm (21 vs. 28.8 months, P=0.83). Stress incontinence and bladder overactivity scores of the USP(®) questionnaire, as well as success rates (73.3 vs. 80%, P=0.67), were equivalent in both arms. CONCLUSION: The results associated with the AUS procedure were not significantly different between men who had a suburethral male sling implanted before and those who had the AUS implanted as a first-line treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the presence of a previously implanted suburethral sling for post-prostatic surgery incontinence influences the outcomes of subsequent AUS implantation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study comparing 15 patients who underwent AUS placement after suburethral sling failure between November 2004 and December 2009 to 15 patients who underwent AUS placement as first-line treatment during the same period. Demographic characteristics, preoperative assessment of urinary incontinence and technique of implantation of the AUS were similar in the both arms. A USP(®) continence questionnaire was sent to patients by mail. Success was defined as a subjective improvement of the incontinence in patients using less than one pad per day. RESULTS: No perioperative incidents were noted in either arm. Mean operative time, the size of implanted cuffs, duration of catheterisation, length of hospital stay and postoperative complication rate, as well as the rate of surgical revision, were similar in both arms. The follow-up was slightly lower in the first arm (21 vs. 28.8 months, P=0.83). Stress incontinence and bladder overactivity scores of the USP(®) questionnaire, as well as success rates (73.3 vs. 80%, P=0.67), were equivalent in both arms. CONCLUSION: The results associated with the AUS procedure were not significantly different between men who had a suburethral male sling implanted before and those who had the AUS implanted as a first-line treatment.