Search

Post prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is a well-recognized and bothersome complication following radical prostatectomy. Conservative measures such as pelvic floor physical therapy, biofeedback, and medication are first line management of PPI. When first line therapies fail, patients are offered a variety of surgical procedures based on the degree of incontinence, prior radiation therapy, and comorbidities. Among the various surgical options, placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for PPI. However, AUS placement has a high rate of re-operation and requires good manual dexterity. In cases of mild-moderate incontinence, especially in patients without prior radiation therapy, male slings and proACT are a less invasive option. Bulking therapy, although highly successful for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), is not currently advised in the treatment of male SUI. Regardless of surgical approach used to treat PPI, providers should counsel patients regarding risks of re-operation and have an open an honest discussion regarding the degree of continence that can be restored following each procedure.

Purpose: Patients with post prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) seem to have different needs. Therefore, device post-operative readjustability may be a beneficial feature in PPI management, even though it lacks study support. The purpose of this study is to describe our surgical technique for male sling (MS) implantation, assess outcomes, and the impact of readjustability. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 89 consecutive patients who underwent PPI correction with MS Argus-T™ (Promedon, Córdoba, Argentina) from 2009 to 2021. The median follow-up was 48 months (12–120). Data were collected in a dedicated database. Perioperative variables were assessed. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Clinical and urodynamic variables were correlated with the need for readjustments and success. Results: In this cohort, objective success was achieved in 80.5% of the patients (65.9% cured and 14.6% improved). A total of 85.4% of the patients met the criteria for subjective success (74.4% cured and 11% improved). For the subgroup of patients who received previous treatment for urethral stricture (US), 79% achieved objective success (63.2% cured, 15.8% improved), and 84.2% achieved subjective success (78.9% cured, 5.3% improved). For the subgroup of patients who received previous radiotherapy (RT) before sling surgery, 68.7% achieved objective success (37.5% cured, 31.2% improved), and 75% achieved subjective success (37.5% cured, 37.5% improved). Procedures for device readjustment were necessary for 27.7% of patients in the total study population. RT and previous US treatment were predictive factors for the need of readjustment, with rates of 66.7% and 61.1% (OR: 8.46; CI: 2.46–29.00; p = 0.001/OR: 6.41; CI: 2.05–20.03; p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusions: MS adjustability improved success rates, especially among irradiated patients and those with previous US. RT was an adverse predictor of total continence status even after readjustments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Male stress urinary incontinence is a debilitating condition, which can occur after prostate surgery. In persistent cases, surgery is indicated and a number of options are available. This includes one of the male slings, Adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMSTM, A.M.I, Austria). There are now an increasing number of studies published. This review provides an overview of the current status of this implant device including technical considerations, surgical outcomes and potential advantages and disadvantages compared to alternatives such as the artificial urinary sphincter.

This article gives a current overview of surgical options and limits of surgical post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) therapy and reflects the contents of workshop 6 at the ICS meeting in Vienna, Austria 2022.The decision-making process in PPI requires consideration of various dimensions from presentation to determination of treatment. Patient factors include the severity of symptoms, age and health condition, comorbidities, and patient’s expectations. Also important are the type of prior prostate surgery, radiation therapy, and status of cure.Only an accurate diagnosis will lead to the most effective management option being chosen. An accurate history, standardized questionnaires, physical examination, and 24-hour pad-weights are essential. Transperineal ultrasound, urethrocystoscopy with a urethral repositioning test, and multichannel urodynamics are useful in assessing sphincter and bladder function, as well as the anastomotic region after radical prostatectomy.The effect of various treatment options, such as slings, balloons, and artificial hydraulic sphincters can now be evaluated with long-term studies. The most widely used type of sling is the two-arm fixed sling with a dry rate of 58% and overall improvement rate of 83% at 5 years. Prior pelvic irradiation may reduce the long-term success rate. Adjustable devices offer the opportunity of adaptation to a potentially changing degree of incontinence to meet individual patients’ needs. Adjustable male slings support the bulbar urethra with a minimal increase of urethral resistanceThe artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the most predictably reliable treatment for men with moderate to severe stress incontinence with social continence rates of 79%. Device revision is required for recurrent incontinence with options including cuff repositioning, downsizing, or transcorporal cuff placement. Alternative hydraulic sphincter systems offer the possibility of postoperative adjustment by changing the intra-device pressure. Recent developments include electrical and remotely controlled devices not yet commercially available. Further factors of the decision-making process are the skills of the surgeon, individual preferences, and product availability.

Objectives Patients and Methods Results Conclusion To evaluate the New Zealand clinical experience with the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS), a novel continence device in the management of all degrees of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), focusing on efficacy and safety outcomes.A retrospective review of all ATOMS devices placed between May 2015 and November 2020 was conducted. Severity of SUI was assessed (pad usage) before and after surgery. SUI was defined as mild (1–<3 pads/day), moderate (≥3–5 pads/day) or severe (>5 pads/day). The primary outcome measures considered were the overall success rate (improvement in pad use) and the dry rate (with dry defined as either no or 1 safety pad/day). The number of outpatient adjustments and total filling volumes were also documented in each case. Additionally, we documented incidence and severity of device complications and an analysis of treatment failures.A total of 140 patients were reviewed, with the most common indication for ATOMS placement being SUI after radical prostatectomy (82.8%). Of the patients included, 53 (37.9%) had previous radiotherapy, with 26 (18.6%) patients having had a previous continence procedure performed. No intraoperative complications were noted. The median preoperative pad usage was 4 pads/day. After a median follow‐up of 11 months, median postoperative pad usage reduced to 1 pad/day. In our cohort, 116 patients (82.9%) reported an improvement in their pad usage and were considered successful with 107 (76.4%) patients reporting themselves to be dry. Complications within the first 90‐days after surgery occurred in 20 (14.3%) of patients.Treatment of SUI with the ATOMS is safe and effective. The option of long‐term, minimally invasive adjustment to respond to patient needs is a significant advantage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A radical prostatectomy is frequently used as the first-line treatment for men with prostate cancer. Persistent urinary incontinence after surgery is one of the most severe adverse events. We report the results of a comprehensive literature search focused on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI), performed by a panel of experts on non-neurogenic lower urinary tract symptoms. The data on the prevalence and timing of PPI are very heterogeneous. The etiology of PPI can be multifactorial and mainly dependent on patient characteristics, lower urinary tract function or surgical issues. The medical history with a physical examination, the use of validated questionnaires with a voiding diary and pad tests are determinants in identifying the contributing factors and choosing the right treatment. Lifestyle intervention and urinary containment are the most frequently used strategies for the conservative management of PPI, while antimuscarinics, beta-3 agonists and duloxetine (off-label) are drugs indicated to manage PPI with a concomitant overactive bladder. Surgical therapies for the management of post-prostatectomy SUI include non-adjustable trans-obturator slings in men with mild-to-moderate incontinence and an artificial urinary sphincter in men with moderate-to-severe incontinence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for severe male stress urinary incontinence, though evaluations of specific predictors for device outcomes are sparse. We sought to compare outcomes between primary and revision AUS surgery for non-infectious failures. Methods: We identified 2045 consecutive AUS surgeries at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) from 1983 to 2013. Of these, 1079 were primary AUS implantations and 281 were initial revision surgeries, which comprised our study group. Device survival rates, including overall and specific rates for device infection/erosion, urethral atrophy and mechanical failure, were compared between primary AUS placements versus revision surgeries. Patient follow-up was obtained through office examination, written correspondence, or telephone correspondence. Results: During the study period, 1079 (79.3%) patients had a primary AUS placement and 281 (20.7%) patients underwent a first revision surgery for mechanical failure or urethral atrophy. Patients undergoing revision surgery were found to have adverse 1- and 5-year AUS device survival on Kaplan–Meier analysis, 90% vs. 85% and 74% vs. 61%, respectively (p

Post prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is a well-recognized and bothersome complication following radical prostatectomy. Conservative measures such as pelvic floor physical therapy, biofeedback, and medication are first line management of PPI. When first line therapies fail, patients are offered a variety of surgical procedures based on the degree of incontinence, prior radiation therapy, and comorbidities. Among the various surgical options, placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for PPI. However, AUS placement has a high rate of re-operation and requires good manual dexterity. In cases of mild-moderate incontinence, especially in patients without prior radiation therapy, male slings and proACT are a less invasive option. Bulking therapy, although highly successful for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), is not currently advised in the treatment of male SUI. Regardless of surgical approach used to treat PPI, providers should counsel patients regarding risks of re-operation and have an open an honest discussion regarding the degree of continence that can be restored following each procedure., (© 2024 The Asian Pacific Prostate Society. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Male stress urinary incontinence is a debilitating condition, which can occur after prostate surgery. In persistent cases, surgery is indicated and a number of options are available. This includes one of the male slings, Adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS TM , A.M.I, Austria). There are now an increasing number of studies published. This review provides an overview of the current status of this implant device including technical considerations, surgical outcomes and potential advantages and disadvantages compared to alternatives such as the artificial urinary sphincter., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Juliebø-Jones, Roth, Tzelves, Hjelle, Moen, Esperto, Somani and Beisland.)

Objectives: To evaluate the New Zealand clinical experience with the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS), a novel continence device in the management of all degrees of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), focusing on efficacy and safety outcomes., Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of all ATOMS devices placed between May 2015 and November 2020 was conducted. Severity of SUI was assessed (pad usage) before and after surgery. SUI was defined as mild (1-<3 pads/day), moderate (≥3-5 pads/day) or severe (>5 pads/day). The primary outcome measures considered were the overall success rate (improvement in pad use) and the dry rate (with dry defined as either no or 1 safety pad/day). The number of outpatient adjustments and total filling volumes were also documented in each case. Additionally, we documented incidence and severity of device complications and an analysis of treatment failures., Results: A total of 140 patients were reviewed, with the most common indication for ATOMS placement being SUI after radical prostatectomy (82.8%). Of the patients included, 53 (37.9%) had previous radiotherapy, with 26 (18.6%) patients having had a previous continence procedure performed. No intraoperative complications were noted. The median preoperative pad usage was 4 pads/day. After a median follow-up of 11 months, median postoperative pad usage reduced to 1 pad/day. In our cohort, 116 patients (82.9%) reported an improvement in their pad usage and were considered successful with 107 (76.4%) patients reporting themselves to be dry. Complications within the first 90-days after surgery occurred in 20 (14.3%) of patients., Conclusion: Treatment of SUI with the ATOMS is safe and effective. The option of long-term, minimally invasive adjustment to respond to patient needs is a significant advantage., (© 2023 BJU International.)

Billy H Cordon,1 Nirmish Singla,1 Ajay K Singla2 1Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, 2Department of Urology, University of Toledo College of Medicine, Toledo, OH, USA Abstract: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), which has evolved over many years, has become a safe and reliable treatment for stress urinary incontinence and is currently the gold standard. After 4 decades of existence, there is substantial experience with the AUS. Today AUS is most commonly placed for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Only a small proportion of urologists routinely place AUS. In a survey in 2005, only 4% of urologists were considered high-volume AUS implanters, performing >20 per year. Globally, ~11,500 AUSs are placed annually. Over 400 articles have been published regarding the outcomes of AUS, with a wide variance in success rates ranging from 61% to 100%. Generally speaking, the AUS has good long-term outcomes, with social continence rates of ~79% and high patient satisfaction usually between 80% and 90%. Despite good outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients, generally ~25%, will require revision surgery, with the rate of revision increasing with time. Complications requiring revision include infection, urethral atrophy, erosion, and mechanical failure. Most infections are gram-positive skin flora. Urethral atrophy and erosion lie on a spectrum resulting from the same problem, constant urethral compression. However, these two complications are managed differently. Mechanical failure is usually a late complication occurring on average later than infection, atrophy, or erosions. Various techniques may be used during revisions, including cuff relocation, downsizing, transcorporal cuff placement, or tandem cuff placement. Patient satisfaction does not appear to be affected by the need for revision as long as continence is restored. Additionally, AUS following prior sling surgery has comparable outcomes to primary AUS placement. Several new inventions are on the horizon, although none have been approved for use in the US at this point. Keywords: artificial urinary sphincter, stress urinary incontinence, post prostatectomy incontinence, prostheses and implants, review

Aims Post prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence can significantly impact on quality of life and is bothersome for patients. The artificial urinary sphincter is still considered the gold standard surgical treatment. Male slings are an alternative surgical option and several designs are currently available. This review will focus on efficacy, adverse events, and mechanism of action of male slings. The context of this review was a proposal at the ICI-RS meeting 2015. Following synthesis of the evidence we address the question: does it matter how male slings work? Methods The proposal lecture was reviewed and a comprehensive review of the literature undertaken utilising the PubMed database. Results Male slings can be broadly divided into adjustable retropubic and suburethral transobturator slings. Male slings are efficacious and can improve quality of life. Adjustable retropubic slings appear to be compressive but studies suggest efficacy can be achieved without voiding dysfunction. Transobturator slings work by urethral compression and/or re-locating the urethral bulb. There is a recognized failure rate in all sling types and most studies suggest radiotherapy as a risk factor for failure. Adjustable slings have the ability to be altered to optimize continence or to prevent retention of urine. However, there appears to be a higher explantation rate in some of these systems. Conclusions It is important to understand how male slings work and by doing so we are more reliably able to choose the appropriate sling, predict outcomes, and as a result counsel patients. Suggestions for future research are proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) era, the prevalence of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) continues to rise as more prostatectomies are performed. Treatment of male SUI is a multifactorial decision depending not only on bladder and sphincteric function, but also patient choice. Due to the economic burden and strain on quality of life, procedures and devices have been developed to help patients alleviate their symptoms. Mainstays of treatment include conservative management with biofeedback and Kegel exercises, periurethral bulking agents, or surgical procedures such as the male urethral sling or the artificial urinary sphincter. A proper evaluation is important as bladder dysfunction in the form of detrusor overactivity, detrusor underactivity, and poor bladder compliance can occur independently or coexist with intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Thus, it is important to clearly define patient symptomatology to optimize outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective : We present our preliminary results of bulbar urethral sling (single bolster) in treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI). Materials and Methods: From May 2003 to June 2005, six patients with postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (transurethral resection of prostate in five patients and after open prostatectomy in one patient) underwent prolene mesh bulbar urethral sling surgery. Preoperative evaluation included physical examination, neurological assessment, stress cystogram and urethrocystoscopy. Urodynamic evaluation was done in all patients for abdominal leak point pressure and ruling out bladder pathology. Results : Urodynamic studies did not demonstrate bladder instability in any patient. Mean abdominal leak point pressure was 43cm of water (range 26-80 cm of water). Mean duration of hospital stay was 3.2 days. Follow-up ranged from 6-22 months. Four patients out of six patients were completely dry till their last follow-up. One patient developed mild stress incontinence after one year of the surgery and required use of one to two pads per day. Mean pad use after surgery was 0.6 pads per day in comparison to mean pad usage of 6.4 pads per day preoperatively. One patient was over-continent after the procedure and required clean intermittent catheterization till last follow-up (six months). Mean cost of the procedure was $ 350+15. Conclusion: Prolene bulbar urethral sling (single bolster) is an economically effective option in patients with postprostatectomy urinary incontinence.

Aims: We explored re-interventions and short and long term adverse events associated with procedures for male incontinence among Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: All inpatient and outpatient claims for a simple random sample of Medicare beneficiaries for 2000-2011 were queried to identify patients of interest. All male patients with an International Classification of Diseases, 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis code for stress incontinence or mixed incontinence were included. Artificial urinary sphincter recipients, patients who underwent a sling operation and those receiving an injection of a bulking agent were identified with Current Procedure Terminology (CPT-4) and ICD-9 Procedure Codes. Results: The entire cohort of 1,246 patients were operated on between 2001 and 2011. 34.9% of them received an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), 28.7% with a bulking agent, and 36.4% with a sling. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics or comorbidities between the treatment groups, except that more sling patients were obese (P=0.006) and fewer bulk patients had diabetes (P=0.007). There are, however, significant changes in procedures selected over time (P<0.001). In the first year and over the entire follow-up after surgery, patients treated with bulking agents had the most subsequent interventions (40.1% and 52.9%), followed by sling (10.4% and 15.5%), and AUS (2.3% and 20%) (P<0.001). Post-operative and 90 day complications were low. Conclusions: All three treatments seem to be safe among Medicare beneficiaries with multiple comorbidities. The urological, infectious, and neurological complication occurrences were low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The ICI-RS Think Tank discussed the diagnostic process for patients who present with symptoms and signs of lower urinary tract (LUT) dysfunction. This manuscript reflects the Think Tank's summary and opinion. Methods An overview of the existing evidence and consensus regarding urodynamic testing was presented and discussed in relation to contemporary treatment strategies. Results Evidence of the validity of the diagnostic process in relation to the contemporary management paradigm is incomplete, scattered, and sometimes conflicting and therefore a process redesign may be necessary. The Think Tanks' suggestion, contained in this manuscript, is that the symptoms and signs that the patients present can be more precisely delineated as syndromes. The overactive bladder syndrome (OAB-S); the stress urinary incontinence syndrome (SUI-S); the urinary incontinence syndrome (UI-S); the voiding dysfunction syndrome (VD-S); and or the neurogenic LUT dysfunction syndrome (NLUTD-S) may become evidence based starting point for initial management. Consistent addition of the word syndrome, if adequately defined, acknowledges the uncertainty, but will improve outcome and will improve selection of patients that need further (invasive) diagnosis before management. Conclusions The ICS-RS Think Tank has summarized the level of evidence for UDS and discussed the evidence in association with the currently changing management paradigm. The ICI-RS Think Tank recommends that the diagnostic process for patients with LUTD can be redesigned. Carefully delineated and evidence based LUTD syndromes may better indicate, personalize and improve the outcome of initial management, and may also contribute to improved and rational selection of patients for invasive UDS. Neurourol. Urodynam. 33:581-586, 2014. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Context: The ever-increasing number of radical prostatectomies entails an increasing number of patients suffering from postprostatectomy stress incontinence despite improved surgical techniques. We provide an overview of the current diagnosis and treatment of postprostatectomy stress incontinence. Objective: To review previous and recent literature on this subject and to assess the current standards of diagnosis and management of postprostatectomy incontinence. Evidence acquisition: The PubMed database was searched, and all articles published since 2000 were evaluated. Evidence synthesis: This review presents the current recommended diagnostic tools and available noninvasive and invasive treatment options. Conclusions: The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends a two-stage assessment for diagnosis of postprostatectomy incontinence. Noninvasive therapy, pelvic floor-muscle training and biofeedback, is recommended in early postoperative and mild incontinence. Pharmacological treatment with duloxetine is especially effective in combination with physiotherapy, where it synergistically improves the continence rate. For surgical treatment, the insertion of an artificial urinary sphincter, AS-800, is still the gold standard. In recent years, several minimal invasive treatment options have been introduced with different rates of success, but they have not yet surpassed the results of the artificial sphincter. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We present our preliminary results of bulbar urethral sling (single bolster) in treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI). Materials and Methods: From May 2003 to June 2005, six patients with postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (transurethral resection of prostate in five patients and after open prostatectomy in one patient) underwent prolene mesh bulbar urethral sling surgery. Preoperative evaluation included physical examination, neurological assessment, stress cystogram and urethrocystoscopy. Urodynamic evaluation was done in all patients for abdominal leak point pressure and ruling out bladder pathology. Results: Urodynamic studies did not demonstrate bladder instability in any patient. Mean abdominal leak point pressure was 43cm of water (range 26-80 cm of water). Mean duration of hospital stay was 3.2 days. Follow-up ranged from 6-22 months. Four patients out of six patients were completely dry till their last follow-up. One patient developed mild stress incontinence after one year of the surgery and required use of one to two pads per day. Mean pad use after surgery was 0.6 pads per day in comparison to mean pad usage of 6.4 pads per day preoperatively. One patient was over-continent after the procedure and required clean intermittent catheterization till last follow-up (six months). Mean cost of the procedure was $ 350+15. Conclusion: Prolene bulbar urethral sling (single bolster) is an economically effective option in patients with postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for severe male stress urinary incontinence, though evaluations of specific predictors for device outcomes are sparse. We sought to compare outcomes between primary and revision AUS surgery for non-infectious failures., Methods: We identified 2045 consecutive AUS surgeries at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) from 1983 to 2013. Of these, 1079 were primary AUS implantations and 281 were initial revision surgeries, which comprised our study group. Device survival rates, including overall and specific rates for device infection/erosion, urethral atrophy and mechanical failure, were compared between primary AUS placements versus revision surgeries. Patient follow-up was obtained through office examination, written correspondence, or telephone correspondence., Results: During the study period, 1079 (79.3%) patients had a primary AUS placement and 281 (20.7%) patients underwent a first revision surgery for mechanical failure or urethral atrophy. Patients undergoing revision surgery were found to have adverse 1- and 5-year AUS device survival on Kaplan-Meier analysis, 90% vs. 85% and 74% vs. 61%, respectively ( p <0.001). Specifically, revision surgery was associated with a significantly increased cumulative incidence of explantation for device infection/urethral erosion (4.2% vs. 7.5% at 1 year; p =0.02), with similar rates of repeat surgery for mechanical failure ( p =0.43) and urethral atrophy ( p =0.77)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest a significantly higher rate of overall device failure following revision AUS surgery, which is likely secondary to an increased rate of infection/urethral erosion events., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2021 Editorial Office of Asian Journal of Urology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.)