Search

Purpose: Previous studies suggested better functional outcomes and longer device survival for female artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation compared to male AUS implantation. We hypothesized that the adoption of robotic approaches for female implantation might have influenced these comparisons. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of robotic female AUS and male AUS implantation for non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI)., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts of male patients who had AUS implantation and female patients who underwent robotic AUS implantation for non-neurogenic SUI between 2010 and 2022 at a single center. Prior AUS implantations were exclusion criteria. The primary endpoint was continence status at 3 months, categorized as complete resolution of SUI (0 pad), improved SUI (1pad), or unchanged SUI (>1pad)., Results: After excluding 79 patients, 171 were included: 70 women and 101 men. Operative time was shorter in males (126.9 vs. 165.5 min; p < 0.0001). Postoperative complication rates were similar (17.3% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.38). Continence status at 3 months and last follow-up favored females. The ICIQ-SF decrease at 3 months was greater in females (-7.2 vs. -4.6; p < 0.001). The 5-year estimated explantation-free survival was similar (78.6% vs. 73.7%; p = 0.94) as was the revision-free survival (67.4% vs. 61.7%; p = 0.89). Multivariate analysis showed that female gender was associated with better continence at last follow-up (OR = 4.3; p = 0.03)., Conclusion: Robotic female AUS implantation is associated with better functional outcomes than male AUS implantation, with similar morbidity and survival rates., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To compare transcorporal vs bulbar artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with fragile urethra and to investigate the risk factors of AUS explantation in this population., Methods: The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2004 and 2020 in 16 centers were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was device explantation-free survival. Only patients with a fragile urethra were included in the present analysis. Fragile urethra was defined as a urethra carrying a high risk of cuff erosion because of prior radiotherapy and/or history of AUS explantation and/or history of urethral stricture surgery. The patients were divided in two groups according to the implantation site: bulbar vs transcorporal., Results: 464 patients were included for analysis. 88 patients underwent a transcorporal AUS implantation and 376 underwent a bulbar AUS implantation. Explantation-free survival was similar in both groups (estimated 5-year explantation free survival rates 55.3% vs. 58.4%; p=0.98). In the subgroup of patients with a history of previous AUS explantation, transcorporal approach tended to bring longer explantation-free survival (2-year explantation-free survival: 61.9% vs. 58.2%; p=0.096). In multivariate analysis, the only risk factor of shorter explantation-free survival was the history of previous AUS explantation (HR=2.65; p=0.01)., Conclusions: Transcorporal AUS implantation was not associated with longer explantation-free survival. History of previous AUS explantation was the only risk factor associated with shorter explantation-free survival and this subgroup of patients may be the only one to draw benefits of transcorporal AUS implantation., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose: To evaluate the determinants and prognostic value of post-operative maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) after AUS implantation in male patients., Methods: The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2008 and 2018 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively for an exploratory study. A post-operative urethral profilometry was performed systematically as part of routine daily practice over the study period to assess the post-operative MUCP with the AUS consecutively closed (c-MUCP) and opened (o-MUCP). The difference between c-MUCP and the manufacturer's theoretical pressure objective determined by the pressure regulating balloon (PRB) was calculated (diff-th-MUCP). The primary endpoint was social continence at 3 months defined as 0-1 protection/day., Results: Ninety patients were included. The median age was 71 years, and the median follow-up was 50 months. The etiology of incontinence was radical prostatectomy in 84% of cases, and endoscopic prostate surgery in 6.6% of patients. There were 74.4% of patients who were socially continent at 3 months. The c-MCUP was significantly higher in the continent group (53 [42.2, 60.2] vs 62 [58, 70] p = 0.02). The diff-th-MUCP did not differ significantly between the two groups (18 [0, 23] vs 1 [- 2, 7.7] p = 0.29). The c-MUCP was not statistically associated with the risk of revision and/or explantation., Conclusion: The MUCP after AUS implantation in male patients often differs from the manufacturer's pressure objective. The postoperative c-MUCP might be significantly associated with functional outcomes suggesting that it might be a valuable tool for treatment decision-making. This should be confirmed by larger studies.