Caroline Jamaer1,2,3, Helene De Bruyn1, Alexander Van Renterghem4, Evert Baten1, Koenraad Van Renterghem1,2,3,5. 1. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Department of Urology, Clinic for Urology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. 3. Department of Urology, Jessa Hospital, Hasselt, Belgium. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Belgium. 5. University of Hasselt, Hasselt, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has become the gold standard to treat severe stress urinary incontinence in men. The traditional placement of an AUS requires 2 incisions. The cuff is placed through a perineal incision and the reservoir and pump are placed via an inguinal incision. The implantation of an AUS is also possible via a single penoscrotal approach. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to demonstrate that the penoscrotal approach is not inferior to the perineal approach. METHODS: Retrospective review of a single surgeon database from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A total of 40 patients have undergone implantation of an AUS via a penoscrotal incision. The outcome of patients was followed for an average of 31.3 months for adverse outcomes. RESULTS: A primary American Medical Systems 800 sphincter was placed in 40 patients via a penoscrotal incision. The average age was 72 years. The average operating time was 35 minutes. The average cuff size was 4 cm. There were no infections of the prothesis so far. Three patients required a revision, 2 other patients needed an explant of the AUS, 1 patient underwent a cystectomy because of persistent radiocystitis. After activation of the sphincter, 33 patients (82.5%) were completely dry or using 1 pad per day for accidents. The remainder were all improved. CONCLUSIONS: AUS implantation via a single penoscrotal approach is not inferior to the perineal approach and has several advantages. The operating time is shorter and the procedure requires only 1 incision which both reduce the risk of infections, while the continence results are similar for both approaches.
BACKGROUND: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has become the gold standard to treat severe stress urinary incontinence in men. The traditional placement of an AUS requires 2 incisions. The cuff is placed through a perineal incision and the reservoir and pump are placed via an inguinal incision. The implantation of an AUS is also possible via a single penoscrotal approach. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to demonstrate that the penoscrotal approach is not inferior to the perineal approach. METHODS: Retrospective review of a single surgeon database from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A total of 40 patients have undergone implantation of an AUS via a penoscrotal incision. The outcome of patients was followed for an average of 31.3 months for adverse outcomes. RESULTS: A primary American Medical Systems 800 sphincter was placed in 40 patients via a penoscrotal incision. The average age was 72 years. The average operating time was 35 minutes. The average cuff size was 4 cm. There were no infections of the prothesis so far. Three patients required a revision, 2 other patients needed an explant of the AUS, 1 patient underwent a cystectomy because of persistent radiocystitis. After activation of the sphincter, 33 patients (82.5%) were completely dry or using 1 pad per day for accidents. The remainder were all improved. CONCLUSIONS: AUS implantation via a single penoscrotal approach is not inferior to the perineal approach and has several advantages. The operating time is shorter and the procedure requires only 1 incision which both reduce the risk of infections, while the continence results are similar for both approaches.
Authors: Brian J Linder; Boyd R Viers; Matthew J Ziegelmann; Marcelino E Rivera; Laureano J Rangel; Daniel S Elliott Journal: J Urol Date: 2015-10-19 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Jairam R Eswara; Robert Chan; Joel M Vetter; H Henry Lai; Timothy B Boone; Steven B Brandes Journal: Urology Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Casey A Seideman; Lee C Zhao; Steven J Hudak; Jesse Mierzwiak; Mehrad Adibi; Allen F Morey Journal: Urology Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Gerard D Henry; Stephen M Graham; Robert J Cornell; Mario A Cleves; Caroline J Simmons; Ioannis Vakalopoulos; Brian Flynn Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-09-16 Impact factor: 7.450