medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2021, Number 6

<< Back

Rev Mex Urol 2021; 81 (6)

Artificial urinary sphincter outcomes for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A narrative review

Corrales-Acosta E, Corrales M, Arenas AAE, Melgarejo GG

Language: English
References: 28
Page:
PDF size: 206.40 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Urinary incontinence post-radical prostatectomy is a common complication that might negatively impact patients’ quality of life. Treatments include medical and surgical options, being the insertion of an artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) the gold standard. The aim of this narrative review is to evaluate the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation for urinary incontinence developed post-radical prostatectomy with and without radiation, in terms of urinary continence and complications. The MEDLINE and Scopus search returned 477 articles. A total of eleven articles were included for qualitative analysis. A total of 707 men that met the inclusion criteria were included. The 22.6% of the men (160 patients) received pelvic external beam radiotherapy prior to the implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter. The overall continence success rate was defined by the use of pads. Some authors reported a success rate of 0 pads per day (PPD) or ≤ 1 PPD in the last follow-up. The complications included urethral atrophy, mechanical failure, revision and/or removal of the device, infection and erosion. Further prospective studies should be done to clarify continence concepts after the placement of an AUS and long-term complications.


REFERENCES

  1. Chen YC, Lin PH, Jou YY, Lin VCH. Surgical treatment for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):1–19.

  2. Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, Eastham JA, Gomez C, Kirages DJ, et al. Incontinence after Prostate Treatment: AUA/SUFU Guideline. J Urol. 2019;202(2):369–78.

  3. Sathianathen NJ, McGuigan SM, Moon DA. Outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient. BJU Int. 2014;113(4):636–41.

  4. Chung E. A state-of-the-art review on the evolution of urinary sphincter devices for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: Past, present and future innovations. J Med Eng Technol. 2014;38(6):328–32.

  5. James MH, Mccammon KA. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: A review. Int J Urol. 2014;21(6):536–43.

  6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–41.

  7. Sacomani CAR, Zequi S de C, da Costa WH, Benigno BS, Campos RSM, Bachega W, et al. Long-term results of the implantation of the AMS 800 artificial sphincter for postprostatectomy incontinence: A single-center experience. Int Braz J Urol. 2018;44(1):114–20.

  8. O’Connor RC, Nanigian DK, Patel BN, Guralnick ML, Ellision LM, Stone AR. Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement in Elderly Men. Urology. 2007;69(1):126–8.

  9. Hoy NY, Rourke KF. Stemming the tide of mild to moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence: A retrospective comparison of transobturator male slings and the artificial urinary sphincter. J Can Urol Assoc. 2014;8(7-8 AUGUST):273–7.

  10. Serag H, Bang S, Almallah YZ. Artificial urinary sphincters for treating postprostatectomy incontinence: A contemporary experience from the UK. Res Reports Urol. 2018;10:63–8.

  11. Lim B, Kim A, Song M, Chun J-Y, Park J, Choo M-S. Comparing Argus sling and artificial urinary sphincter in patients with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Exerc Rehabil. 2014;10(5):337–42.

  12. Kim M, Choi D, Hong JH, Kim CS, Ahn H, Choo MS. Factors contributing to treatment outcomes of post-prostatectomy incontinence surgery for the selection of the proper surgical procedure for individual patients: A single-center experience. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(6):1978–87.

  13. Sacco E, Gandi C, Marino F, Totaro A, Di Gianfrancesco L, Palermo G, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter significantly better than fixed sling for moderate post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a propensity score-matched study. BJU Int. 2020;127(2):229–37.

  14. Kretschmer A, Hüsch T, Anding R, Pottek T, Rose A, Struss W, et al. The impact of perioperative complications on favorable outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for post-prostatectomy incontinence. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46(4):632–9.

  15. Mottet N, Boyer C, Chartier-Kastler E, Naoum K Ben, Richard F, Costa P. Artificial urinary sphincter AMS 800 for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: The french experience. Urol Int. 1998;60(SUPPL.2):25–9.

  16. Trigo Rocha F, Gomes CM, Mitre AI, Arap S, Srougi M. A Prospective Study Evaluating the Efficacy of the Artificial Sphincter AMS 800 for the Treatment of Postradical Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence and the Correlation Between Preoperative Urodynamic and Surgical Outcomes. Urology. 2008;71(1):85–9.

  17. Van Der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: A critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013;63(4):681–9.

  18. Kim PH, Pinheiro LC, Atoria CL, Eastham JA, Sandhu JS, Elkin EB. Trends in the use of incontinence procedures after radical prostatectomy: A population based analysis. J Urol. 2013 Feb;189(2):602–8.

  19. Rahman NU, Minor TX, Deng D, Lue TF. Combined external urethral bulking and artificial urinary sphincter for urethral atrophy and stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2005;95(6):824–6.

  20. McKibben MJ, Shakir N, Fuchs JS, Scott JM, Morey AF. Erosion rates of 3.5-cm artificial urinary sphincter cuffs are similar to larger cuffs. BJU Int. 2019 Feb;123(2):335-341. doi: 10.1111/bju.14483.

  21. Davenport MT, Akhtar AM, Shakir NA, Baumgarten AS, Yi YA, Bergeson RL, et al. Comparison of 3.5 cm and transcorporal cuffs in high-risk artificial urinary sphincter populations. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(1):62–6.

  22. Guralnick ML, Miller E, Toh KL, Webster GD. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy. J Urol. 2002;167(5):2075–9.

  23. de Cógáin MR, Elliott DS. The impact of an antibiotic coating on the artificial urinary sphincter infection rate. J Urol. 2013 Jul;190(1):113-7. doi: 10.1016/j. juro.2013.01.015.

  24. Hofer MD, Gonzalez CM. Management of radiation-induced urethral strictures. Transl Androl Urol. 2015 Feb;4(1):66-71. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2015.01.04.

  25. Queissert F, Huesch T, Kretschmer A, Anding R, Kurosch M, Kirschner-Hermanns R, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter cuff size predicts outcome in male patients treated for stress incontinence: Results of a large central European multicenter cohort study. Int Neurourol J. 2019;23(3):219–25.

  26. Rivera ME, Linder BJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. The Impact of Prior Radiation Therapy on Artificial Urinary Sphincter Device Survival. J Urol. 2016;195(4):1033–7.

  27. Manunta A, Guille F, Patard J. J, Lobel B. Artificial sphincter insertion after radiotherapy : is it worthwhile ? BJU. 2000;(85):490–2.

  28. Biardeau X, Aharony S, Group the AC, Campeau L, Corcos J. Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Executive Summary of the 2015 Consensus Conference. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;35:55–7.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com