Search

Objective: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the surgical gold standard after previously failed surgical treatment for male urinary stress incontinence. The evidence for a male sling as salvage treatment is poor, but there is a proportion of patients that refuse implantation of an AUS or have a relative contraindication. The goal of our retrospective study was an analysis of outcome and complications of patients with a secondary sling after previously failed surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI)., Materials and Methods: Data on 186 patients who had a prior incontinence surgery were extracted from the DOMINO database. 139 patients (74.7%) received an AUS and 41 patients (22.0%) who had received a secondary sling system between 2010 and 2012 after previously failed surgery for male urinary incontinence could be identified and were further analyzed., Results: Eight patients (19.5%) received a secondary repositioning sling and 33 patients (80.5%) received a secondary adjustable sling system. A prior surgery for urethral stricture was performed in 4 patients (9.8%). No major intraoperative complications were reported. A simultaneous explantation was performed in 12 patients (29.3%). The mean number of pad reductions was 4.93 (p = 0.026). No intraoperative complications and no postoperative surgical revisions were reported. The mean follow-up of the patient cohort with a secondary sling was 16 months., Conclusion: We provide the largest cohort of male patients up to date with a secondary sling after primary failure of surgery for male SUI. Although the procedure is a rarely performed surgery and without a high level of evidence, a secondary adjustable male sling system might be a feasible option in selected patients with acceptable complication rates, whereas a valuable outcome regarding continence rates cannot be sufficiently supplied by our data., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: To analyze decision-making in patients with male urinary incontinence (SUI) in centers of expertise. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the gold standard for male patients with moderate to severe SUI but adjustable male slings are a minimally invasive treatment option with good results, hence without a high level of evidence regarding the optimal patient selection., Materials and Methods: In total, 220 patients (88 AUS; 132 adjustable slings) were investigated from the DOMINO database that underwent surgery between 2010 and 2012 in 5 urological departments that offer adjustable sling systems as well as AUS systems for patients with moderate to severe urinary incontinence. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to identify differences between both groups., Results: Patients selected for an adjustable male sling were less likely to have a neurological disease (5.3 vs. 9.1%; p = 0.030), a prior urethral stricture (22.7 vs. 50.0%; p = 0.001), a prior incontinence surgery (24.4 vs. 45.5%; p = 0.01), or a prior radiation therapy (26.5 vs. 40.1%; p = 0.001). The severity of preoperative incontinence was higher in patients selected for an AUS with a mean pad usage per day of 7.60 versus 5.80 (p < 0.001). Mean postoperative pad usage and patients' subjective perception were comparable in both groups., Conclusion: In centers offering both options, the decision-making is mainly based upon presence of radiation therapy and previous failed incontinence surgery. Despite the more complex patient cohort selected for an AUS implantation with a possible impact on the postoperative outcome, the functional results seem to be comparable indicating a proper preoperative patient assessment and selection in this cohort., (© 2020 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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., (© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: We analysed the impact of predefined risk factors: age, diabetes, history of pelvic irradiation, prior surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI), prior urethral 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., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Unlabelled: 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 single-cuff 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., (© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel.)