Back to Search Start Over

Efficacy of Pressure Regulating Balloon Exchange in Men With Post Artificial Urinary Sphincter Persistent or Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Authors :
Moses RA
Keihani S
Craig JR
Basilius J
Hotaling JM
Lenherr SM
Brant WO
Myers JB
Source :
Urology [Urology] 2019 Jan; Vol. 123, pp. 252-257. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 Sep 07.
Publication Year :
2019

Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy of exchanging the pressure regulating balloon (PRB) to 71-80 cm H <subscript>2</subscript> O in patients with persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement.<br />Methods: Patients with SUI following AUS placement who underwent PRB replacement between 2011 and 2017 in the absence of urethral cuff malfunction, atrophy, stricture, or erosion were reviewed. Primary outcomes included changes in pad per day (PPD), Incontinence Symptom Index score, and Incontinence Quality of Life (I-QOL). Secondary outcomes included rates of device erosion and all-cause explant or revision. Differences were compared between patients with and without erosion, explant, or revision. Kaplan Meier device survival analysis was performed.<br />Results: Twenty two patients (67 ± 9 years, body mass index of 30 ± 5 kg/m <superscript>2</superscript> ) with a median follow up of 22.4 months (IQR 9.3, 47.3) were included. Incontinence etiology included radical prostatectomy in 60% of patients. After PRB exchange, the average number of PPD decreased from 4.0 ± 3.0 to 1.0 ± 1.6 PPD (P = .01), as did Incontinence Symptom Index scores (21.6 ± 8.5 vs 16.3 ± 8.1, P <.001) and Incontinence Quality of Life (15.2 ± 6.8 vs 7.2 ± 3.4, P = .01). Three patients with prior radiation (14%) experienced cuff erosion. The explantation/revision rate was 45%(10/22) at 33.5(IQR 8.9,48) months. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated 68%(15/22) and 41%(9/22) retained their device for 12 and 24 months, respectively.<br />Conclusion: PRB exchange can transiently alleviate persistent or recurrent post-AUS SUI in the absence of mechanical failure or urethral pathology. Caution is warranted in patients with prior radiation as this was a risk factor for urethral erosion. Although many patients may require device revision within 2 years, it can be a temporizing solution that avoids urethral manipulation and periprocedural device deactivation.<br /> (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1527-9995
Volume :
123
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Urology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
30201300
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.07.052