Andrew J Cohen1, William Boysen2, Kristine Kuchta3, Sarah Faris2, Jaclyn Milose3. 1. Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC6038, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. andrewjasoncohen@gmail.com. 2. Section of Urology, University of Chicago Medicine, 5841 S. Maryland Avenue, MC6038, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. 3. Division of Urology, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Refractory urinary incontinence after channel transurethral resection of the prostate (cTURP) (TURP in the setting of prostate cancer) is a rare occurrence treated with artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). We sought to characterize those patients receiving AUS after cTURP and understand device longevity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent cTURP and AUS placement in SEER-Medicare from 2002 to 2014. We analyzed factors affecting device longevity using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. We performed propensity matching to accurately compare patients receiving AUS after cTURP to those receiving AUS after radical prostatectomy (RP). RESULTS: For patients undergoing cTURP, 201 out of 56,957 ultimately underwent AUS placement (< 0.5%). AUS after cTURP incurred a 48.4% rate of reoperation versus 30.9% after RP. Importantly, patients undergoing cTURP were significantly older than those undergoing RP [75 vs. 71 years of age (p < 0.01)]. At 3 years after insertion, 28.2% of patients after RP required reoperation compared to 37.8% of patients post-cTURP (p < 0.01). There were no detectable differences in revision rates for those patients who underwent traditional vs. laser cTURP. Patients with a history of radiation therapy had significantly shorter device survival. Even after propensity matching, patients receiving AUS after cTURP incurred more short-term complications compared to AUS after RP. Differences in device longevity were diminished after propensity match. CONCLUSIONS: In the SEER-Medicare population, AUS after cTURP remains rare. While there is an increased risk of infectious complications, AUS after cTURP fared similarly to AUS after RP in terms of device longevity. A history of radiation therapy leads to worse outcome for all patients.
PURPOSE: Refractory urinary incontinence after channel transurethral resection of the prostate (cTURP) (TURP in the setting of prostate cancer) is a rare occurrence treated with artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). We sought to characterize those patients receiving AUS after cTURP and understand device longevity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent cTURP and AUS placement in SEER-Medicare from 2002 to 2014. We analyzed factors affecting device longevity using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. We performed propensity matching to accurately compare patients receiving AUS after cTURP to those receiving AUS after radical prostatectomy (RP). RESULTS: For patients undergoing cTURP, 201 out of 56,957 ultimately underwent AUS placement (< 0.5%). AUS after cTURP incurred a 48.4% rate of reoperation versus 30.9% after RP. Importantly, patients undergoing cTURP were significantly older than those undergoing RP [75 vs. 71 years of age (p < 0.01)]. At 3 years after insertion, 28.2% of patients after RP required reoperation compared to 37.8% of patients post-cTURP (p < 0.01). There were no detectable differences in revision rates for those patients who underwent traditional vs. laser cTURP. Patients with a history of radiation therapy had significantly shorter device survival. Even after propensity matching, patients receiving AUS after cTURP incurred more short-term complications compared to AUS after RP. Differences in device longevity were diminished after propensity match. CONCLUSIONS: In the SEER-Medicare population, AUS after cTURP remains rare. While there is an increased risk of infectious complications, AUS after cTURP fared similarly to AUS after RP in terms of device longevity. A history of radiation therapy leads to worse outcome for all patients.
Authors: Christian Gratzke; Alexander Bachmann; Aurelien Descazeaud; Marcus J Drake; Stephan Madersbacher; Charalampos Mamoulakis; Matthias Oelke; Kari A O Tikkinen; Stavros Gravas Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Ryan P Kopp; Lynn M Marshall; Patty Y Wang; Douglas C Bauer; Elizabeth Barrett-Connor; J Kellogg Parsons Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Alexander Kretschmer; Alexander Buchner; Benedikt Leitl; Markus Grabbert; Anne Sommer; Wael Khoder; Christian Gozzi; Christian G Stief; Ricarda M Bauer Journal: Int Neurourol J Date: 2016-12-26 Impact factor: 2.835
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: Linley Diao; Samantha W Nealon; Gianpaolo P Carpinito; Shervin Badkhshan; Avery R Wolfe; Benjamin M Dropkin; Sarah C Sanders; Steven J Hudak; Allen F Morey Journal: Int Braz J Urol Date: 2022 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.050