Sascha A Ahyai1,2, Tim A Ludwig3, Roland Dahlem3, Armin Soave3, Clemens Rosenbaum3, Felix K-H Chun3, Margit Fisch3, Marianne Schmid3, Luis A Kluth3. 1. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany. sascha.ahyai@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. sascha.ahyai@med.uni-goettingen.de. 3. Department of Urology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate continence and complication rates of bulbar single-cuff (SC) and distal bulbar double-cuff (DC) insertion in male patients with severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) according to whether the men were considered low or high risk for unfavourable artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 180 male patients who underwent AUS implantation between 2009 and 2013 were followed according to institutional standards. Patients with previous pelvic radiation therapy, open bulbar urethral or UI surgery ('high risk') underwent distal bulbar DC (123 patients) insertion, all others ('low risk') had proximal bulbar SC (57) insertion. Primary and secondary endpoints consisted of continence and complication rates. Kaplan-Meier analysis determined explantation-free survival, and Cox regression models assessed risk factors for persistent UI and explantation. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 24 months. Whereas there was no significant difference in pad usage/objective continence after SC vs DC insertion, superior rates of subjective/social continence and less persistent UI were reported by the patients with DC devices (all P ≤ 0.02). Overall, device explantation (erosion, infection or mechanical failure) occurred in 12.8% of patients. While early (<6 weeks) complication rates compared with SC patients were similar (P > 0.05), DC patients had a 5.7-fold higher risk of device explantation during late follow-up (P = 0.02) and significantly shorter explantation-free survival (log-rank, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Distal bulbar DC insertion in patients with a 'high-risk' profile (previous pelvic radiation, urethral surgery) leads to similar objective continence, but higher explantation rates when compared with patients considered 'low risk' with proximal bulbar SCs. Randomised controlled trials comparing both devices will be needed to determine whether the higher explanations rates are attributable to the DC device or to underlying risk factors.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate continence and complication rates of bulbar single-cuff (SC) and distal bulbar double-cuff (DC) insertion in male patients with severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) according to whether the men were considered low or high risk for unfavourable artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 180 male patients who underwent AUS implantation between 2009 and 2013 were followed according to institutional standards. Patients with previous pelvic radiation therapy, open bulbar urethral or UI surgery ('high risk') underwent distal bulbar DC (123 patients) insertion, all others ('low risk') had proximal bulbar SC (57) insertion. Primary and secondary endpoints consisted of continence and complication rates. Kaplan-Meier analysis determined explantation-free survival, and Cox regression models assessed risk factors for persistent UI and explantation. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 24 months. Whereas there was no significant difference in pad usage/objective continence after SC vs DC insertion, superior rates of subjective/social continence and less persistent UI were reported by the patients with DC devices (all P ≤ 0.02). Overall, device explantation (erosion, infection or mechanical failure) occurred in 12.8% of patients. While early (<6 weeks) complication rates compared with SC patients were similar (P > 0.05), DCpatients had a 5.7-fold higher risk of device explantation during late follow-up (P = 0.02) and significantly shorter explantation-free survival (log-rank, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Distal bulbar DC insertion in patients with a 'high-risk' profile (previous pelvic radiation, urethral surgery) leads to similar objective continence, but higher explantation rates when compared with patients considered 'low risk' with proximal bulbar SCs. Randomised controlled trials comparing both devices will be needed to determine whether the higher explanations rates are attributable to the DC device or to underlying risk factors.
Authors: Valentin Maurer; Phillip Marks; Roland Dahlem; Clemens Rosenbaum; Christian P Meyer; Silke Riechardt; Margit Fisch; Tim Ludwig Journal: World J Urol Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 4.226
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: Melanie A Adamsky; William R Boysen; Andrew J Cohen; Sandra Ham; Roger R Dmochowski; Sarah F Faris; Gregory T Bales; Joshua A Cohn Journal: Urology Date: 2017-09-28 Impact factor: 2.649
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