Search

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the adjustable trans‐obturator male system (ATOMS®) to treat post‐prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) in radiated patients compared with non‐radiated patients, using propensity score‐matching analysis to enhance the validity of the comparison. Patients and methods Consecutive men with PPI treated with silicone‐covered scrotal port ATOMS (A.M.I., Feldkirch, Austria) in nine different institutions between 2016 and 2022 were included. Preoperative assessment evaluated 24‐h pad usage, urethroscopy and urodynamics, if indicated. Propensity score‐matching analysis was based on age, length of follow‐up, previous PPI treatment, previous bladder neck stricture, androgen deprivation and pad usage. The primary endpoint was dry rate, defined as no pads post‐operatively with a security pad allowed. The secondary endpoints were complications, device removal and self‐perceived satisfaction with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI‐I) scale. Results Of the 710 included patients, 342 were matched, and the study groups were balanced for the baseline matched variables. The mean baseline 24‐h pad was 4.8 in both groups (p = 0.48). The mean follow‐up was 27.5 ± 18.6 months, which was also equivalent between groups (p = 0.36). The primary outcome was achieved in 73 (42.7%) radiated patients and in 115 (67.3%) non‐radiated patients (p

Aim of the study:: To assess the efficacy of intravesical hyaluronic acid and chondroitin sulfate (HACS) instillations in treating patients with bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis (BPS/IC), as well as to identify predictive factors for clinical response. Materials and methods:: Patients diagnosed with BPS/IC and treated with Ialuril® (HACS) bladder instillations between January 2018 and August 2020 were included. Data collected included Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores, number of pain episodes, 3-day frequency volume chart measurements (at baseline and last follow-up), Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) questionnaire responses, age, history of urinary tract infections (UTIs), and endoscopic findings from cystoscopy with hydrodistension. Statistical analyses included Mann–Whitney’s non-parametric U-test and chi-square test with a 95% confidence interval (p ≤ 0.05) to identify predictive factors of treatment success. Results:: A total of 104 patients were treated with a median follow-up of 29 months (IQR 14–40), predominantly female with a mean age of 60 ± 16 years. At the last follow-up, there was a median reduction of 1 point in the VAS score (IQR 1–1), whilst only 20% experienced a reduction of ≥2 points. A statistically significant correlation was observed in the reduction of days with pain per month before and after treatment (ΔDPV) (median reduction: 6 days, IQR 2–7, p < 0.001). No adverse events were reported during treatment. Regarding prognostic factors, three statistically significant correlations were found: between PGI-I success and age (p=0.050), between ΔVAS score and recurrent UTIs (p=0.044), and between ΔDPV and recurrent UTIs (p=0.04). Discussion:: The study did not demonstrate any significant reduction of VAS score or diurnal and nocturnal voiding frequency after treatment, on the contrary it did show a reduction in the number of days with pain. Consequently, 88.3% of patients reported positive subjective improvement on the PGI-I questionnaire, and none discontinued treatment. Endoscopic findings did not appear to correlate with treatment response. Conclusions:: Age and the presence of recurrent UTIs may influence the response to intravesical HACS therapy in terms of PGI-I, VAS score, and reduction in days with pain.

Background: Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after surgical treatment of benign prostatic enlargement (BPE) is an infrequent but dreadful complication and constitutes a therapeutic challenge. The efficacy and safety of the adjustable trans-obturator male system (ATOMS®) in these patients is rather unknown, mainly due to the rarity of this condition. We aimed to assess the results of ATOMS to treat SUI after transurethral resection (TURP) or holmium laser enucleation (HoLEP) of the prostate. Methods: Retrospective multicenter study evaluating patients with SUI after TURP or HoLEP for BPE primarily treated with silicone-covered scrotal port (SSP) ATOMS implants in ten different institutions in Europe and Canada between 2018 and 2022. Inclusion criteria were pure SUI for >1 year after endoscopic treatment for BPE and informed consent to receive an ATOMS. The primary endpoint of the study was a dry rate (pad test ≤ 20 mL/day after adjustment). The secondary endpoints were: the total continence rate (no pads and no leakage), complication rate (Clavien–Dindo classification) and self-perceived satisfaction (Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale 1 to 3). Descriptive analytics, Wilcoxon's rank sum test and Fisher's exact test were performed. Results: A total of 40 consecutive patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 23 following TURP and 17 HoLEP. After ATOMS adjustment, 32 (80%) patients were dry (78.3% TURP and 82.4% HoLEP; p = 1) and total continence was achieved in 18 (45%) patients (43.5% TURP and 47% HoLEP; p = 0.82). The median pad test was at a 500 (IQR 300) mL baseline (648 (IQR 650) TURP and 500 (IQR 340) HoLEP; p = 0.62) and 20 (IQR 89) mL (40 (IQR 90) RTUP and 10 (IQR 89) HoLEP; p = 0.56) after adjustment. Satisfaction (PGI-I ≤ 3) was reported in 37 (92.5%) patients (95.6% TURP and 88.2% HoLEP; p = 0.5). There were no significant differences between patients treated with TURP or HoLEP regarding the patient age, radiotherapy and number of adjustments needed. After 32.5 (IQR 30.5) months, median follow-up postoperative complications occurred in seven (17.5%) cases (two grade I and five grade II; three after TURP and four HoLEP) and two devices were removed (5%, both HoLEP). Conclusions: ATOMS is an efficacious and safe alternative to treat SUI due to sphincteric damage produced by endoscopic surgery for BPE, both TURP and HoLEP. Future studies with a larger number of patients may identify predictive factors that would allow better patient selection for ATOMS in this scenario. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although antibiotic prophylaxis (AB) demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in bacteriuria after invasive urodynamics (UDS), no significant decrease in the incidence of urinary tract infections (UTI) has been confirmed. No absolute recommendations on the use of AB in case of relevant potential risk of UTI have been reported, though some categories of patients at increased infective probability after UDS have been recognized. The aim of this study is to report the experts' consensus on the best practice for the use of AB before UDS in the main categories of patients at potential risk of developing UTI. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was performed on AB before UDS in males and females. A panel of experts from the Italian Society of Urodynamics, Continence, Neuro‐Urology, and Pelvic Floor (SIUD) assessed the review data and decided by a modified Delphi method on 16 statements proposed and discussed by the panel. The cut‐off percentage for the consensus was a ≥70% of positive responses to the survey. The study was a Delphi consensus with experts' opinions, not a clinical trial involving directly patients. Results: The panel group was composed of 57 experts in functional urology and UDS, mainly urologists, likewise gynaecologists, physiatrists, infectivologists, pediatric urologists, and nurses. A positive consensus was achieved on 9/16 (56.25%) of the statements, especially on the need for performing AB before UD in patients with neurogenic bladder and immunosuppression. Urine analysis and urine culture before UDS are mandatory, and in the event of their positivity, UDS should be postponed. A consensus was reached on avoiding AB in menopausal status, diabetes, age, gender, bladder outlet obstruction, high postvoid residual, chronic catheterization, previous urological surgery, lack of urological abnormalities, pelvic organ prolapse, and negative urine analysis. Conclusions: Antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients without notable risk factors and with a negative urine test due to the potential morbidities that may result from antibiotic administration. However, AB can be used for risk categories such as neurogenic bladder and immunosuppression. The evaluation of urine analysis and urine culture and postponing UDS in cases of positive tests were considered good practices, as well as performing AB in the neurogenic bladder and immunosuppression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]