Literature DB >> 26743390

Foley or Fix: A Comparative Analysis of Reparative Procedures at the Time of Explantation of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Cuff Erosion.

Nathan Chertack1, Hemant Chaparala2, Kenneth W Angermeier3, Drogo K Montague3, Hadley M Wood3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuff erosion intraoperative management methods: Foley catheter placement, abbreviated urethroplasty (AU), or mobilization with primary urethral anastomosis (PA). We reviewed these options to compare postoperative complications and probability of AUS reimplantation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients treated for AUS cuff erosion from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. We divided patients into 3 groups based on intraoperative management of the urethra: Foley only, AU, or PA. Patient characteristics, operative times, outcomes, complications, and reimplantation factors were recorded and analyzed.
RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with a median age of 77 years (72-83) were treated for AUS cuff erosion. Fifty-two underwent Foley placement, 8 AU, and 15 PA. Mean follow-up was 13 months (0-106). Severe erosions were more common in the PA group than Foley or AU (100% vs 37%, 100% vs 38%, P <.001, P <.001, respectively). Severe erosions treated with Foley were more likely to develop strictures than mild erosions (38% vs 5%, P = .009). Tandem cuff patients treated with Foley were more likely to develop diverticuli than single cuff patients (33% vs 4%, P = .016). There was no difference in probability of reimplantation between PA and Foley or AU (63% vs 69%, 63% vs 33%, P = .748, P = .438, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: Foley catheter placement alone may represent suboptimal management for severe or tandem cuff erosions due to increased risk of urethral complications. Urethral defect management should be determined at the time of explantation by individual patient characteristics and surgeon experience.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26743390     DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.11.040

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urology        ISSN: 0090-4295            Impact factor:   2.649


  4 in total

Review 1.  Artificial Urinary Sphincter Complications: Risk Factors, Workup, and Clinical Approach.

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

2.  Artificial urinary sphincter urethral erosions: Temporal patterns, management, and incidence of preventable erosions.

Authors:  Deepak K Agarwal; Brian J Linder; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

3.  Urethral Stricture Formation Following Cuff Erosion of AMS Artificial Urinary Sphincter Devices: Implication for a Less Invasive Explantation Approach.

Authors:  Katharina Kuhlencord; Roland Dahlem; Malte W Vetterlein; Raisa S Abrams-Pompe; Valentin Maurer; Christian P Meyer; Silke Riechardt; Margit Fisch; Tim A Ludwig; Phillip Marks
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-02-09

Review 4.  Artificial urinary sphincters for male stress urinary incontinence: current perspectives.

Authors:  Billy H Cordon; Nirmish Singla; Ajay K Singla
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2016-07-04
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.