INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence in men after radical prostatectomy affects strongly quality of life. If conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment consists of implantable devices. If the requirement of manual dexterity in the artificial sphincter is to be avoided, the ProACT system offers a readjustable system, which shows good continence, but also high revision rates. Aim of our single-centre, single-surgeon study was to evaluate the success and revision rates of ProACT over long-term follow-up and if repeat ProACT implantation after failure would be a reasonable strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2017, follow-up of all patients who underwent ProACT implantation between 2003 and 2013 was obtained. Parameters were numbers of pads used, filling volume of balloons, and patient-reported satisfaction. Furthermore, revisions were noted. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2013, 134 patients were implanted a ProACT system. Median age was 71 years; median follow-up was 118 months. 112 implantations were successful (82.6%) and the number of pads used decreased significantly (p < 0.005). 63 patients were revised and 49 were successful (77.8%). No differences in success rate, pads used, or filling volume were seen (all p > 0.8). In a second revision, again, no differences in success rate or pads used were noted (all p > 0.7). Patients' personal satisfaction was high despite the high revision rate. CONCLUSION: In the hands of an experienced surgeon, ProACT is a safe and effective therapy for post-prostatectomy incontinence especially if mayor surgery is to be avoided. Revision rates are high, but the results of ProACT reimplantation are comparable to the results after the first implantation.
INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence in men after radical prostatectomy affects strongly quality of life. If conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment consists of implantable devices. If the requirement of manual dexterity in the artificial sphincter is to be avoided, the ProACT system offers a readjustable system, which shows good continence, but also high revision rates. Aim of our single-centre, single-surgeon study was to evaluate the success and revision rates of ProACT over long-term follow-up and if repeat ProACT implantation after failure would be a reasonable strategy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In May 2017, follow-up of all patients who underwent ProACT implantation between 2003 and 2013 was obtained. Parameters were numbers of pads used, filling volume of balloons, and patient-reported satisfaction. Furthermore, revisions were noted. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2013, 134 patients were implanted a ProACT system. Median age was 71 years; median follow-up was 118 months. 112 implantations were successful (82.6%) and the number of pads used decreased significantly (p < 0.005). 63 patients were revised and 49 were successful (77.8%). No differences in success rate, pads used, or filling volume were seen (all p > 0.8). In a second revision, again, no differences in success rate or pads used were noted (all p > 0.7). Patients' personal satisfaction was high despite the high revision rate. CONCLUSION: In the hands of an experienced surgeon, ProACT is a safe and effective therapy for post-prostatectomy incontinence especially if mayor surgery is to be avoided. Revision rates are high, but the results of ProACT reimplantation are comparable to the results after the first implantation.
Authors: Thomas M Kessler; David La Framboise; Sven Trelle; Clare J Fowler; Gustav Kiss; Jürgen Pannek; Brigitte Schurch; Karl-Dietrich Sievert; Daniel S Engeler Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Flavio Trigo-Rocha; Cristiano Mendes Gomes; Antonio Carlos Lima Pompeo; Antonio Marmo Lucon; Sami Arap Journal: Urology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Javier C Angulo; Sandra Schönburg; Alessandro Giammò; Francisco J Abellán; Ignacio Arance; David Lora Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 3.240