Literature DB >> 32055468

Comparison of 3.5 cm and transcorporal cuffs in high-risk artificial urinary sphincter populations.

Michael T Davenport1, Abdulhadi M Akhtar1, Nabeel A Shakir1, Adam S Baumgarten1, Yooni A Yi1, Rachel L Bergeson1, Ellen E Ward1, Allen F Morey1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The transcorporal (TC) artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has traditionally been utilized in high-risk patients with urethral atrophy or prior urethral erosion. The 3.5 cm AUS cuff has been developed for use in a similar population. We compared the outcomes of TC AUS and 3.5 cm cuff patients to assess whether the TC approach was protective against urethral complications.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review for all men who underwent TC AUS and 3.5 cm AUS implantation by a single surgeon from 2007 to 2018 at a tertiary medical center. Demographic and outcomes data were collected and analyzed after database review to evaluate for rates of urethral erosion. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify co-morbid factors associated with urethral erosion.
RESULTS: In our database of 625 AUS patients, we identified 59 (9%) men with TC AUS and 168 (27%) having a 3.5 cm cuff. Over a median follow-up time of 49 months, 28 (47%) men with TC cuffs developed urethral erosion compared with 25 (15%) men with a 3.5 cm cuff. On univariate analysis, a TC cuff was associated with increased odds of erosion (OR 6.65, 95% CI: 3.20-14.4, P<0.0001) when compared with a 3.5 cm cuff. On multivariate analysis, TC cuffs continued to portend significantly increased odds of cuff erosion.
CONCLUSIONS: With longer follow up, TC AUS may not be as protective against urethral complications as previously described. 2020 Translational Andrology and Urology. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS); erosion; revision surgery; urinary incontinence

Year:  2020        PMID: 32055468      PMCID: PMC6995934          DOI: 10.21037/tau.2019.09.33

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


  17 in total

1.  Impact of 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff on primary and revision surgery for male stress urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Steven J Hudak; Allen F Morey
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 7.450

2.  Long-term Outcomes Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: An Analysis of 1082 Cases at Mayo Clinic.

Authors:  Brian J Linder; Marcelino E Rivera; Matthew J Ziegelmann; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 2.649

3.  Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy.

Authors:  Michael L Guralnick; Elizabeth Miller; Khai Lee Toh; George D Webster
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 7.450

4.  Long-Term Quality of Life and Functional Outcomes among Primary and Secondary Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantations in Men with Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Authors:  Boyd R Viers; Brian J Linder; Marcelino E Rivera; Laureano J Rangel; Matthew J Ziegelmann; Daniel S Elliott
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-03-17       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Artificial urinary sphincter placement in compromised urethras and survival: a comparison of virgin, radiated and reoperative cases.

Authors:  James B McGeady; Jack W McAninch; Mathew D Truesdale; Sarah D Blaschko; Stacey Kenfield; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion occurs predominantly in irradiated patients.

Authors:  Jay Simhan; Allen F Morey; Nirmish Singla; Timothy J Tausch; J Francis Scott; Gary E Lemack; Claus G Roehrborn
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-08-12       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Risk factors for erosion of artificial urinary sphincters: a multicenter prospective study.

Authors:  William O Brant; Bradley A Erickson; Sean P Elliott; Christopher Powell; Nejd Alsikafi; Christopher McClung; Jeremy B Myers; Bryan B Voelzke; Thomas G Smith; Joshua A Broghammer
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  [Treatment of male urinary incontinence by artificial urinary sphincter with intracavernous cuff].

Authors:  M Blah; R Caremel; L Sibert; H Bugel; P Grise
Journal:  Prog Urol       Date:  2008-03-17       Impact factor: 0.915

9.  Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter placement for incontinence in high-risk patients after treatment of prostate cancer.

Authors:  David S Aaronson; Sean P Elliott; Jack W McAninch
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 2.649

10.  Intermediate outcomes after transcorporal placement of an artificial urinary sphincter.

Authors:  Dominic Lee; Helen Zafirakis; Andrew Shapiro; O Lenaine Westney
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2012-05-09       Impact factor: 3.369

View more
  3 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.  Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Prostate Cancer Patients Treated With Radiation Therapy: Past and Present.

Authors:  Whi-An Kwon; Seo-Yeon Lee; Tae Yoong Jeong; Hong Sang Moon
Journal:  Int Neurourol J       Date:  2021-01-19       Impact factor: 2.835

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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.