Revision Techniques After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Failure in Men: Results From a Multicenter Study.
Academic Article
Overview
abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of various single-component artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) revision techniques for continued/recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Although AUS placement for male SUI has a high rate of success, revisions may be performed for mechanical failure of an isolated component or continued/recurrent SUI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 2012, 90 AUS revisions including urethral cuff downsizing (19), pressure-regulating balloon replacement (18), cuff repositioning (11), or tandem cuff placement (42) were performed at 2 institutions. End points included reoperation, incontinence failure, and urethral erosion. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare continuous variables, and the log-rank test was used to compare Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Mean age was 70.2 years, and median follow-up was 33.6 months. Median time to revision was 28.9 months. Tandem cuff placement was associated with a lower rate of incontinence failure (P = .02), whereas cuff repositioning was associated with a higher rate of incontinence failure (P = .02). An increased rate of mechanical failure was observed with cuff downsizing (P = .01). Among options for revision (1) cuff downsizing is associated with a higher rate of mechanical failure, and (2) cuff repositioning with the same size is associated with a higher rate of incontinence failure, whereas (3) tandem cuff placement is associated with a lower rate of recurrent SUI compared to other types of AUS revision. CONCLUSION: Cuff repositioning is associated with an increased rate of persistent incontinence after AUS revision whereas tandem cuff placement is associated with a lower rate of recurrent or persistent incontinence.
