PURPOSE: Many patients with persistent incontinence after an artificial urinary sphincter procedure gain improved continence after cuff downsizing. In 2010 a new, smaller (3.5 cm) artificial urinary sphincter cuff was introduced. We hypothesized that men with spongiosal atrophy previously treated with a 4.0 cm cuff would now show a decreased rate of revision surgery due to more accurate cuff sizing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the outcome in men who received identical 4.0 cm cuff sizes in 2 eras, before (2007 to 2009) and after (2010 to 2013) the introduction of the 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff. Patients with a history of cuff erosion or those undergoing tandem, transcorporal, or 4.5 cm or greater cuff placement were excluded from analysis. We validated our institutional results using the nationwide AMS® PIF (Patient Information Form) database from identical time frames. RESULTS: Of 236 men who underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution during the study period 170 with a mean age of 67 years met study inclusion criteria, of whom 88 (52%) received a 4.0 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff. Mean followup was 34 months. Ten of 45 patients (22.2%) who had a 4.0 cm cuff placed from 2007 to 2009 required cuff downsizing for persistent incontinence while only 2 of 43 (4.7%) who received a 4.0 cm cuff from 2010 to 2013 required revision (p <0.001). Nationally patients with a 4.0 cm cuff underwent fewer revisions during the latter era (16.2% vs 7.5%, p = 0.001). In local and national cohorts Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed improved survival of the 4.0 cm cuff after the introduction of the 3.5 cm cuff (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery in patients with a 4.0 cm cuff has decreased since the availability of the 3.5 cm cuff. This suggests that precise cuff sizing appears to be beneficial in men with spongiosal atrophy.
PURPOSE: Many patients with persistent incontinence after an artificial urinary sphincter procedure gain improved continence after cuff downsizing. In 2010 a new, smaller (3.5 cm) artificial urinary sphincter cuff was introduced. We hypothesized that men with spongiosal atrophy previously treated with a 4.0 cm cuff would now show a decreased rate of revision surgery due to more accurate cuff sizing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the outcome in men who received identical 4.0 cm cuff sizes in 2 eras, before (2007 to 2009) and after (2010 to 2013) the introduction of the 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff. Patients with a history of cuff erosion or those undergoing tandem, transcorporal, or 4.5 cm or greater cuff placement were excluded from analysis. We validated our institutional results using the nationwide AMS® PIF (Patient Information Form) database from identical time frames. RESULTS: Of 236 men who underwent artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution during the study period 170 with a mean age of 67 years met study inclusion criteria, of whom 88 (52%) received a 4.0 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff. Mean followup was 34 months. Ten of 45 patients (22.2%) who had a 4.0 cm cuff placed from 2007 to 2009 required cuff downsizing for persistent incontinence while only 2 of 43 (4.7%) who received a 4.0 cm cuff from 2010 to 2013 required revision (p <0.001). Nationally patients with a 4.0 cm cuff underwent fewer revisions during the latter era (16.2% vs 7.5%, p = 0.001). In local and national cohorts Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed improved survival of the 4.0 cm cuff after the introduction of the 3.5 cm cuff (p <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery in patients with a 4.0 cm cuff has decreased since the availability of the 3.5 cm cuff. This suggests that precise cuff sizing appears to be beneficial in men with spongiosal atrophy.
Authors: Roger K Khouri; Nicolas M Ortiz; Benjamin M Dropkin; Gregory A Joice; Adam S Baumgarten; Allen F Morey; Steven J Hudak Journal: Curr Urol Rep Date: 2021-03-29 Impact factor: 3.092
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: Fabian Queissert; Benedict Bruecher; Sonja Ruiz; Miguel Virseda-Chamorro; Andres J Schrader; Javier C Angulo Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 1.862