1. Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): Results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up
- Author
-
Marcus J. Drake, Emanuele Zaffuto, M. Favro, Stéphane Larré, Frank Van der Aa, Kari A.O. Tikkinen, François Haab, Cosimo De Nunzio, Enrico Ammirati, Ene Launonen, Giorgio Bozzini, John Heesakkers, Sascha Ahyai, Philip S. Li, Jean Nicolas Cornu, Thomas Pichon, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca, Nikesh Thiruchelvam, Richard K. Lee, Ricarda M. Bauer, Manuela Tutolo, and Alexander Bachmann
- Subjects
Adult ,Male ,Reoperation ,medicine.medical_specialty ,artificial urinary sphincter ,male stress urinary incontinence ,surgical treatment ,Urology ,Urinary Incontinence, Stress ,030232 urology & nephrology ,Urinary incontinence ,Logistic regression ,Artificial urinary sphincter ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,medicine ,Humans ,Data reporting ,Aged ,Retrospective Studies ,Aged, 80 and over ,Prostatectomy ,030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine ,business.industry ,Retrospective cohort study ,Middle Aged ,3. Good health ,Surgery ,Europe ,Mid term follow up ,Reconstructive and regenerative medicine Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences [Radboudumc 10] ,Treatment Outcome ,Centre for Surgical Research ,Cohort ,Urinary Sphincter, Artificial ,Urologic Surgical Procedures ,Prostate surgery ,Neurology (clinical) ,medicine.symptom ,business ,Follow-Up Studies - Abstract
AIMS: To assess efficacy and safety as well as predictive factors of dry rate and freedom from surgical revision in patients underwent AUS placement. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still considered the standard for the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, data reporting efficacy and safety from large series are lacking. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 16 centers in Europe and USA. Only primary cases of AUS implantation in non-neurogenic SUI after prostate surgery, with a follow-up of at least 1 year were included. Efficacy data (continence rate, based on pad usage) and safety data (revision rate in case of infection and erosion, as well as atrophy or mechanical failure) were collected. Multivariable analyses were performed in order to investigate possible predictors of the aforementioned outcomes. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-two men had primary AUS implantation. At 32 months mean follow-up overall dry rate and surgical revision were 58% and 30.7%, respectively. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients without previous incontinence surgery had a higher probability to be dry after AUS implantation (OR: 0.51, P = 0.03). Moreover institutional case-load was positively associated with dry rate (OR: 1.18; P = 0.005) and freedom from revision (OR: 1.51; P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study showed that AUS is an effective option for the treatment of SUI after prostate surgery. Moreover previous incontinence surgery and low institutional case-load are negatively associated to efficacy and safety outcomes. ispartof: NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS vol:38 issue:2 pages:710-718 ispartof: location:United States status: published
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF