Literature DB >> 32055466

Urethral atrophy is now a rare cause for artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery in the contemporary 3.5 cm cuff era.

Rachel L Bergeson1, Yooni A Yi1, Ryan C Baker1, Ellen E Ward1, Michael T Davenport1, Allen F Morey1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urethral atrophy has long been suggested as the leading cause of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) revision. Since the introduction of the 3.5 cm AUS cuff in 2010, precise cuff sizing primarily has been suggested to reduce revisions due to urethral atrophy. We evaluated a large contemporary series of reoperative AUS cases to determine reasons for revision surgery.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed our tertiary referral center database of male AUS procedures performed by a single surgeon from 2007-2019. AUS revision or replacement procedures were included for analysis. Cuff sizes and reasons for reoperation were recorded based on intraoperative findings and evaluated for temporal trends. Patients with cuff erosion or lacking follow-up were excluded.
RESULTS: Among 714 AUS cases, 177 revisions or replacements were identified. Of these, 137 met inclusion criteria [mean age 71.7 years, median follow-up 52.7 months (IQR 22.3-94.6 months)]. Urethral atrophy was cited as the cause of AUS failure in 8.0% (11/137) of cases overall, virtually never among those with a 3.5 cm cuff placement (1/51, 2.0%). In those with ≥4.0 cm cuffs, urethral atrophy was the reason for revision in 10/86 (11.6%). Pressure regulating balloon (PRB) failure was the most frequently cited cause of failure (47/137, 34.3%). Cuff-related failure (23/137, 16.8%) and mechanical failure of unspecified device component (16/137, 11.8%) were the next most frequent causes of failure.
CONCLUSIONS: Urethral atrophy has become a rare cause of AUS revision surgery since the availability of smaller cuffs. PRB-related failure is now the leading cause of AUS reoperation. 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS); prostheses and implants; revision; urinary incontinence

Year:  2020        PMID: 32055466      PMCID: PMC6995939          DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.07.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transl Androl Urol        ISSN: 2223-4683


  20 in total

1.  Survival of the artificial urinary sphincter in a changing patient profile.

Authors:  M J Te Dorsthorst; M J van der Doelen; F Farag; F M J Martens; J P F A Heesakkers
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 4.226

2.  Clinical Risk Factors Associated With Urethral Atrophy.

Authors:  Boyd R Viers; Shawn Mathur; Matthias D Hofer; Daniel D Dugi; Travis J Pagliara; Nirmish Singla; Jordon Walker; Jeremy M Scott; Allen F Morey
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2016-12-16       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  13 years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine.

Authors:  H Henry Lai; Elias I Hsu; Bin S Teh; E Brian Butler; Timothy B Boone
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Indications for revision of artificial urinary sphincter and modifiable risk factors for device-related morbidity.

Authors:  Ifeanyichukwu I Anusionwu; E James Wright
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2012-06-12       Impact factor: 2.696

5.  Urethral atrophy after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: fact or fiction?

Authors:  Simon Bugeja; Stella L Ivaz; Anastasia Frost; Daniela E Andrich; Anthony R Mundy
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 5.588

6.  Decreasing need for artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery by precise cuff sizing in men with spongiosal atrophy.

Authors:  Jay Simhan; Allen F Morey; Lee C Zhao; Timothy J Tausch; J Francis Scott; Steven J Hudak; Brian C Mazzarella
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Patterns and timing of artificial urinary sphincter failure.

Authors:  Andrew Jason Cohen; Kristine Kuchta; Sangtae Park; Jaclyn Milose
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2018-01-30       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Mechanical failure rates of artificial urinary sphincter components: Is the 3.5-cm urethral cuff at higher risk?

Authors:  Jeffrey C Loh-Doyle; Natalie Hartman; Azadeh Nazemi; Kevin Wayne; Leo R Doumanian; David A Ginsberg; Stuart D Boyd
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 2.696

9.  Multicenter Analysis of Patient Reported Outcomes Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Authors:  Jonathan T Wingate; Bradley A Erickson; Gregory Murphy; Thomas G Smith; Benjamin N Breyer; Bryan B Voelzke
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Efficacy of Pressure Regulating Balloon Exchange in Men With Post Artificial Urinary Sphincter Persistent or Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Authors:  Rachel A Moses; Sorena Keihani; James R Craig; Jacob Basilius; James M Hotaling; Sara M Lenherr; William O Brant; Jeremy B Myers
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 2.649

View more
  1 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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.