Search

Aim: To evaluate treatment options after surgical revision of adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) and the results of further incontinence implantation., Materials and Methods: A retrospective multicenter study evaluating patients with surgical revision of ATOMS in academic institutions. Causes and factors affecting revision-free interval were studied and also the frequency of device explant and placement of second ATOMS or artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) at surgeon discretion. Operative results, complications (Clavien-Dindo), and efficacy (postoperative pad-test, pad-count, patient satisfaction, and patient global impression of improvement [PGI-I scale]) of each treatment option were compared., Results: Seventy-eight out of 902 patients (8.65%) with ATOMS underwent surgical revision at 4.1 ± 2.4 years mean follow-up and 75 (8.3%) were explanted. The main causes for revision included persistence of incontinence (35.9%) and scrotal port erosion (34.6%). Independent risk factors of the shortened revision-free interval were previous anti-incontinence surgery (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.06-3.16; p = 0.007) and port erosion (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.06-3.16; p = 0.0027). Fifty-eight (6.4%) received a second implant: 31 repeated ATOMS and 27 AUS. Operative time was longer for AUS (p = .003). The visual analog scale of pain at hospital discharge (p = 0.837) and postoperative complications (p = 0.154) were equivalent. The predominant cuff size for AUS was 4.5 cm (59.3%). Mean follow-up after the second implant was 29.1 ± 25.8 months. Postoperative efficacy of secondary treatment results favored ATOMS based on pad-test (p = 0.016), pad-count (p = 0.029), patient satisfaction (p = 0.04), and PGI-I (p = 0.025)., Conclusions: ATOMS surgical revision due to different reasons generally leads to device explant. Rescue treatment is possible with ATOMS or AUS. No difference in postoperative complications was detected between secondary devices, but efficacy favors repeating ATOMS implantation., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Aim: To analyze the influence of implantation volume of artificial sphincters (AMS 800) on outcome in a large central European multicenter cohort study., Methods: As part of the DOMINO (Debates on Male Incontinence) project, the surgical procedures and outcomes were retrospectively analyzed in a total of 473 patients who received an artificial sphincter (AMS 800) between 2010 and 2012. Clinics that implanted at least 10 AMS 800 per year were defined as high-volume centers., Results: Sixteen centers had a mean rate of 9.54 AMS 800/y of which five clinics were identified as high-volume centers. They implanted significantly more double cuffs (55% vs 12.1%; P < .001), used the perineal approach significantly more often (78% vs 67.7%; P = .003) and chose larger mean cuff sizes (4.63 cm vs 4.42 cm; P = .002). With a mean follow-up of 18 months, the revision rate was significantly higher at low-volume centers (38.5% vs 26.7%; P = .037), urethral erosion being the main reason for revision. Social continence (0-1 pads/24 h) was achieved significantly more often in high-volume centers (45.5% vs 24.2%; P = .002)., Conclusions: Our study showed significantly better continence results and lower revision rates at high-volume centers, confirming earlier results that are still true in this decade. We, therefore, recommend surgery for male incontinence at qualified centers., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objective: To investigate the effect of perioperative complications involving artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation on rates of explantation and continence as well as health-related quality of life (HRQOL)., Materials and Methods: Inclusion criteria encompassed non-neurogenic, moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) post radical prostatectomy and primary implantation of an AUS performed by a high-volume surgeon (>100 previous implantations). Reporting complications followed the validated Clavien-Dindo scale and Martin criteria. HRQOL was assessed by the validated IQOL score, continence by the validated ICIQ-SF score. Statistical analysis included Chi (2) test, Mann-Whitney-U test, and multivariate regression models (p<0.05)., Results: 105 patients from 5 centers met the inclusion criteria. After a median follow-up of 38 months, explantation rates were 27.6% with a continence rate of 48.4%. In the age-adjusted multivariate analysis, perioperative urinary tract infection was confirmed as an independent predictor of postoperative explantation rates [OR 24.28, 95% CI 2.81-209.77, p=0.004). Salvage implantation (OR 0.114, 95% CI 0.02-0.67, p=0.016) and non-prostatectomy related incontinence (OR 0.104, 95% CI 0.02-0.74, p=0.023) were independent predictors for worse continence outcomes. Low visual analogue scale scores (OR 9.999, 95% CI 1,42-70.25, p=0.021) and ICIQ-SF scores, respectively (OR 0.674, 95% CI 0.51-0.88, p=0.004) were independent predictors for increased HRQOL outcomes. Perioperative complications did not significantly impact on continence and HRQOL outcomes., Conclusion: Findings show postoperative infections adversely affect device survival after AUS implantation. However, if explantation can be avoided, the comparative long-term functional results and HRQOL outcomes are similar between patients with or without perioperative complications., Competing Interests: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

Aims: To comparatively analyse outcomes after ARGUS classic and ArgusT adjustable male sling implantation in a real-world setting., Methods: Inclusion criteria encompassed: non-neurogenic, moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence (≥2 pads), implantation of an ARGUS classic or ArgusT male sling between 2010 and 2012 in a high-volume center (>150 previous implantations). Functional outcomes were assessed using daily pad usage, 24-hour pad testing, and International Consultation on Incontinence (ICIQ-SF) questionnaires. Continence was defined as zero pads per 24 hours. Complications were graded using Clavien-Dindo scale. For multivariate analysis, binary logistic regression models were used (P < .05)., Results: A total of 106 patients (n = 74 [ARGUS classic], n = 32 [ArgusT]) from four centers were eligible. Median follow-up was 44.0 months (24-64). Patient cohorts were well-balanced. We observed a statistical trend in favor of ARGUS classic regarding postoperative urine loss based on standardized 24-hour pad test (71 ± 162 g [ARGUS classic] vs 160 ± 180 g [ArgusT]); P = .066]. Dry rates were 33.3% (ARGUS classic) and 11.8% (ArgusT, P = .114). In multivariable analysis, ArgusT male sling could not be confirmed as an independent predictor of decreased success (OR, 0.587; 95% CI; 0.166-2.076, P = .408). There were no Clavien IV and V complications. Inguinal pain was significantly higher after ArgusT implantation (P = .033). Explantation rates were higher for ArgusT compared to ARGUS classic (14.0 vs 23.3%; P = .371). Longer device survival for the ARGUS classic male sling was observed in Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = .198)., Conclusions: In the largest comparative analysis of ARGUS classic and ArgusT male sling with the longest follow-up to date, we observed low continence rates with superior functional outcomes and decreased explantation rates after ARGUS classic implantation., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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.)

Purpose: To analyze and compare preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative results in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) selected for an adjustable male sling system or an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort., Methods: 658 male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in this study (n = 176 adjustable male sling; n = 482 AUS). Preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. For statistical analysis, the independent T test and Mann-Whitney U test were used., Results: Patients undergoing adjustable male sling implantation were less likely to have a neurological disease (4.5% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), a history of urethral stricture (21.6% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.024) or a radiation therapy (22.7% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.020) compared to patients that underwent AUS implantation. Mean pad usage per day (6.87 vs. 5.82; p < 0.00) and the ratio of patients with a prior incontinence surgery were higher in patients selected for an AUS implantation (36.7% vs. 22.7%; p < 0.001). At maximum follow-up, patients that underwent an AUS implantation had a significantly lower mean pad usage during daytime (p < 0.001) and nighttime (p = 0.018). Furthermore, the patients' perception of their continence status was better with a subjective complete dry rate of 57.3% vs. 22.0% (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Patients selected for an AUS implantation showed a more complex prior history and pathogenesis of urinary incontinence as well as a more severe grade of SUI. Postoperative results reflect a better continence status after AUS implantation, favoring the AUS despite the more complicated patient cohort.

Purpose: To compare the efficacy and perioperative complications of the AdVanceXP with the original AdVance male sling., Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 109 patients with an AdVance and 185 patients with an AdVanceXP male sling. The baseline characteristics and complication rates were analyzed retrospectively. Functional outcome and quality of life were evaluated prospectively by standardized, validated questionnaires. The Chi 2 -test for categorical and Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables were performed to identify heterogeneity between the groups., Results: Regarding operation time, there was no significant difference between the slings (p = 0.146). The complication rates were comparable in both groups except for postoperative urinary retention. This occurred significantly more often in patients with the AdVanceXP (p = 0.042). During follow-up, no differences could be identified regarding ICIQ-SF, PGI or I-QoL or number of pad usage., Conclusions: The AdVance and AdVanceXP are safe and effective treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. However, the innovations of the AdVanceXP sling did not demonstrate a superiority over the original AdVance sling regarding functional outcome.

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: Most aspects of implant-assisted reconstruction of pelvic floor in males and females are under debate and the research is not standardized. Registries are supposed to shed light to the indications, surgical techniques and material properties and to establish a standardized evaluation., Methods: A working group was formed to create an online platform for registration and outcome measurement of implant-assisted operations for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and female and male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). 20 patients with modified mesh materials were evaluated over 23 months follow up in the registry to prove the feasibility of the registry. For validation a previously published modified "satisfaction, anatomy, continence, safety - S.(A.)C.S score" was used., Results: A consensus was met on definitions and classifications of patient variables, surgical procedures and implants, as well as outcome parameters (efficacy, continence, satisfaction, complications). Different subgroup modules were formed in accordance with treated condition. The maximum score of cure was reached by 25-100% of patients depending on the indication., Conclusion: A prospective registry in accordance with IDEAL-D framework is justified for the evaluation and regulation of implants for pelvic floor reconstruction., (Copyright © 2017 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Purpose: To analyze efficacy and safety for the ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter in a multicenter case series., Methods: Thirteen male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter device between 2010 and 2012 in three international continence reference centers. Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed using the Clavien-Dindo scale. Re-hospitalization and explantation rates, and functional outcome were assessed. Inner-group and between-group differences were analyzed using Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U, and Fisher's exact test whenever indicated. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess device survival. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: There were no intraoperative complications. Median follow-up was 13.5 months. In this period, four device defects (30.8 %) could be observed, being the main cause for device explantation, followed by device infection (15.4 %), non-resolvable pain (7.7 %), and urethral erosion (7.7 %). There were no Clavien IV or Clavien V complications. Overall explantation rate was 61.5 %. Mean time-to-explantation was 279 ± 308 days. There was no significant influence of previous irradiation and previous invasive incontinence therapy (p = 0.587 and p = 0.685, respectively). Mean daily pad usage decreased from 5.8 ± 1.5 to 2.4 ± 2.1 (p = 0.066). One patient (7.7 %) did not use any pads. Social continence (0-1 pads) was achieved in 15.4 % of the patients., Conclusion: This is the most current study that is investigating the outcome after ZSI375 implantation in a multicenter case series. Based on our results, explantation rates after ZSI375 implantation are high and efficacy rates seem lower than previously described. Addressing this high failure rate, the system has undergone a two-step modification in the meantime.