Ahmet Keles1, Rahmi Onur2, Murat Aydos3, Murat Dincer4, Orhan Koca5, Burhan Coskun6, Abdurrahim Imamoglu7, Ahmet Karakeci8. 1. Istanbul Esenyurt State Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey. Electronic address: drkeles2009@yahoo.com. 2. Marmara University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey. 3. University of Health Sciences, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey. 4. University of Health Sciences, Bagcilar Education and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey. 5. University of Health Sciences, Haydarpasa Numune Education and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Istanbul, Turkey. 6. Uludag University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Bursa, Turkey. 7. University of Health Sciences, Diskapi Training and Research Hospital, Department of Urology, Ankara, Turkey. 8. Firat University School of Medicine, Department of Urology, Elazig, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between education level, cognitive function of patients and the success/ revision rates of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with postprostatectomy incontinence. METHODS: Between January 2010 and March 2018, 163 patients (mean age, 68 ± 6.8 years) with moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence who underwent AUS implantation were retrospectively examined. Demographic data, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical technique, previous strictures, and radiation therapy were recorded. Incontinence was measured by daily pad use and evaluated by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form. Patients' overall improvement was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. Education level was determined using the International Standard Classification of Education. Cognitive status was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination. Treatment success was defined as the need for ≤1 pad/day at last follow-up. RESULTS: AUS was successful in 77.3% of patients. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form score improved significantly from 19.9 ± 2.9 to 4.4 ± 5.4 (P = .001). The median outcome reported subjectively on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale was 2.1 ± 1.5 (1-7) and self-reported as "much better." Patients' education level had statistically no significant relationship with AUS success and revision rates. Similarly, there was no significant relationship between cognitive status, educational level and the need for revision of AUS (P >.05). However, patients with moderate cognitive impairment and a body mass index >30 showed significantly lower AUS success rates (P <.05). CONCLUSION: AUS implantation is safe and effective treatment option especially for nonobese and cognitively intact patients of all educational levels.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between education level, cognitive function of patients and the success/ revision rates of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with postprostatectomy incontinence. METHODS: Between January 2010 and March 2018, 163 patients (mean age, 68 ± 6.8 years) with moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence who underwent AUS implantation were retrospectively examined. Demographic data, body mass index, comorbidities, surgical technique, previous strictures, and radiation therapy were recorded. Incontinence was measured by daily pad use and evaluated by International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form. Patients' overall improvement was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire. Education level was determined using the International Standard Classification of Education. Cognitive status was assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination. Treatment success was defined as the need for ≤1 pad/day at last follow-up. RESULTS: AUS was successful in 77.3% of patients. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form score improved significantly from 19.9 ± 2.9 to 4.4 ± 5.4 (P = .001). The median outcome reported subjectively on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement scale was 2.1 ± 1.5 (1-7) and self-reported as "much better." Patients' education level had statistically no significant relationship with AUS success and revision rates. Similarly, there was no significant relationship between cognitive status, educational level and the need for revision of AUS (P >.05). However, patients with moderate cognitive impairment and a body mass index >30 showed significantly lower AUS success rates (P <.05). CONCLUSION: AUS implantation is safe and effective treatment option especially for nonobese and cognitively intact patients of all educational levels.