Search

Introduction: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TiLOOP® male sling (pfm medical, Cologne, Germany) used in the treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Material and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated a total of 34 patients with a TiLOOP® male sling. Perioperative complication rates were assessed and validated questionnaires were prospectively evaluated to assess quality of life and satisfaction rate. Outcome and complication rates were analysed by using descriptive statistics. Correlation of continence outcome and risk factors was performed with the chi-square test. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The majority of patients (70.6%) were diagnosed with mild or moderate male SUI. During surgery, one instance (2.9%) of intraoperative urethral injury was observed. There were no immediate postoperative complications. The mean follow-up time was 44.6 months. An improvement of male SUI was reported by 61.9% of the patients and 38.1% reported no change according the Patient Global Impression of Improvement. The mean perineal pain score was 0.5 according to the international index of pain. Conclusions: The TiLOOP® is a safe treatment option for male SUI in our cohort with a low complication rate. However, the functional outcome of the TiLOOP® was inferior when compared to the outcome of the AdVance® male sling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: We analysed the impact of predefined risk factors: age, diabetes, history of pelvic irradiation, prior surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), prior urethral Received: May 19, 2016 Accepted: August 17, 2016 Published online: September 3, 2016 Internationalis Urologia stricture, additional procedure during SUI surgery, duration of incontinence, ASA-classification and cause for incontinence on failure and complications in male SUI surgery. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively identified 506 patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and 513 patients with a male sling (MS) in a multicenter cohort study. Complication rates were correlated to the risk factors in univariate analysis. Subsequently, a multivariate logistic regression adjusted to the risk factors was performed. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A history of pelvic irradiation was an independent risk factor for explantation in AUS (p < 0.001) and MS (p = 0.018). Moreover, prior urethral stricture (p = 0.036) and higher ASA-classification (p = 0.039) were positively correlated with explantation in univariate analysis for AUS. Urethral erosion was correlated with prior urethral stricture (p < 0.001) and a history of pelvic irradiation (p < 0.001) in AUS. Furthermore, infection was correlated with additional procedures during SUI surgery in univariate analysis (p = 0.037) in MS. Conclusions: We first identified the correlation of higher ASA-classification and explantation in AUS. Nevertheless, only a few novel risk factors had a significant influence on the failure of MS or AUS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Aims/Objectives: To analyze perioperative complication and short-term explantation rates after perineal or penoscrotal single-cuff and double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in a large middle European multi-institutional patient cohort. Methods: 467 male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a perineal single-cuff (n = 152), penoscrotal single-cuff (n = 99), or perineal double-cuff (n = 216) AUS between 2010 and 2012. Postoperative complications and 6-month explantation rates were assessed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and a multiple logistic regression model were used (p < 0.05). Results: Compared to perineal single-cuff AUS, penoscrotal single-cuff implantation led to significantly increased short-term explantation rates (8.6% (perineal) vs. 19.2% (penoscrotal), p = 0.019). The postoperative infection rate was significantly higher after double-cuff compared to singlecuff implantation (6.0% (single-cuff) vs. 13.9% (double-cuff), p = 0.019). The short-term explantation rate after primary double-cuff placement was 6.5% (p = 0.543 vs. perineal single- cuff). In multivariate analysis, the penoscrotal approach (p = 0.004), intraoperative complications (p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding (p = 0.011), and perioperative infection (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for short-term explantation. Conclusions: Providing data from a large contemporary multi-institutional patient cohort from high-volume and low-volume institutions, our results reflect the current standard of care in middle Europe. We indicate that the penoscrotal approach is an independent risk factor for increased short-term explantation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]