Use of the artificial urinary sphincter in men and women

Long-term lower urinary tract sequelae following AUS cuff erosion

AIMS

To examine the rate of lower urinary tract complications (LUTC) and urinary diversion (UD) after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) explantation with the acute reconstruction of AUS cuff erosion defects.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of patients who underwent in-situ urethroplasty (ISU) for AUS cuff erosion from June 2007 to December 2020. Outcomes included LUTC (urethral stricture, diverticulum, fistula), AUS reimplantation, and UD. Defect size was prospectively estimated acutely and a subanalysis was performed to determine the impact of erosion severity (small erosions [<33% circumferential defect] and large erosions [≥33%]) on these outcomes. Kaplan-Meier curves were created to compare survival between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients underwent ISU for urethral cuff erosion. The median patient age was 76 years old with a median erosion circumference of 46%. The overall LUTC rate was 30% (12/40) with 35% (14/40) of patients requiring permanent UD. Secondary AUS placement occurred in 24/40 (60%) patients with 11/24 (46%) leading to repeat erosion. On subanalysis, small erosion was associated with improved LUTC-free and UD-free survival but not associated with AUS reimplantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower urinary tract complications are common after AUS cuff erosion and can lead to the need for permanent UD. Patients with larger erosions are more likely to undergo UD and reach this end-stage condition earlier compared to patients with small erosions.

Long-term results of the implantation of the AMS 800 artificial sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a single-center experience

OBJECTIVES

Report the long-term outcomes of the AMS 800 artificial sphincer (AS) for the treatment post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) in a single center in Brazil.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical data from patients who underwent the procedure were retrieved from the medical records of individuals with more than 1 year of follow-up from May 2001 to January 2016. Continence status (number of pads that was used), complications (erosion or extrusion, urethral atrophy, and infection), malfunctions, and need for secondary implantation were evaluated. The relationship between complications and prior or subsequent radiation therapy (RT) was also examined.

RESULTS

From May 2001 to January 2016, 121 consecutive patients underwent AS implantation for PPI at an oncological referral center in Brazil. At the last visit, the AS remained implanted in 106 patients (87.6%), who reported adequate continence status (maximum of 1 pad/day). Eight-two subjects (67.8%) claimed not to be using pads on a regular basis at the final visit (completely dry). Revision occurred in 24 patients (19.8%).Radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy was used in 47 patients before or after AS placement. Twelve patients with a history of RT had urethral erosion compared with 3 men without RT (p=0.004).

CONCLUSION

Considering our outcomes, we conclude that AS implantation yields satisfactory results for the treatment of PPI and should remain the standard procedure for these patients. Radiation therapy is a risk factor for complication.

Prostate cancer survivorship: Implementation of survivorship care plans to meet the mandate and enhance urologic practice through collaborative care

Prostate cancer is the most common malignancy among the male survivorship population in the United States, representing 44% of approximately 7 million survivors. In the era of modern medicine and value-based care, successfully treating only the cancer is not sufficient. The cancer survivor represents an individual in need of restoration and protection against future events. A well-designed and well-supported survivorship program not only meets a mandate for accreditation, it logically translates into better patient care. This review summarizes the history of the survivorship movement, outlines some key elements of a survivorship program, and highlights the opportunity to apply these principles to improve cancer-related care, develop relationships with colleagues that may allow increased identification of men at risk, and expand both the experience and outcomes of individual specialists within men's health.

Artificial urinary sphincters for male stress urinary incontinence: current perspectives

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), which has evolved over many years, has become a safe and reliable treatment for stress urinary incontinence and is currently the gold standard. After 4 decades of existence, there is substantial experience with the AUS. Today AUS is most commonly placed for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Only a small proportion of urologists routinely place AUS. In a survey in 2005, only 4% of urologists were considered high-volume AUS implanters, performing >20 per year. Globally, ~11,500 AUSs are placed annually. Over 400 articles have been published regarding the outcomes of AUS, with a wide variance in success rates ranging from 61% to 100%. Generally speaking, the AUS has good long-term outcomes, with social continence rates of ~79% and high patient satisfaction usually between 80% and 90%. Despite good outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients, generally ~25%, will require revision surgery, with the rate of revision increasing with time. Complications requiring revision include infection, urethral atrophy, erosion, and mechanical failure. Most infections are gram-positive skin flora. Urethral atrophy and erosion lie on a spectrum resulting from the same problem, constant urethral compression. However, these two complications are managed differently. Mechanical failure is usually a late complication occurring on average later than infection, atrophy, or erosions. Various techniques may be used during revisions, including cuff relocation, downsizing, transcorporal cuff placement, or tandem cuff placement. Patient satisfaction does not appear to be affected by the need for revision as long as continence is restored. Additionally, AUS following prior sling surgery has comparable outcomes to primary AUS placement. Several new inventions are on the horizon, although none have been approved for use in the US at this point.

Revision Techniques After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Failure in Men: Results From a Multicenter Study

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.

Bacterial colonization rate of InterStim and infection outcome with staged testing

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the bacterial colonization rate of the InterStim connector and lead during staged testing and the infectious outcome.

METHODS

A total of 38 consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo staged InterStim surgery were enrolled in the present prospective study. During the second stage procedure, immediately after the connector incision was opened, aerobic and anaerobic cultures were obtained by swabbing the connector pocket, the connector, and the permanent lead itself with sterile swabs.

RESULTS

Of the 38 patients, 9 (24%) had a positive culture at the connector or lead site after the incision was opened during the second stage procedure. Of the 9 patients who had a colonized connector or lead, 3 (33%) subsequently developed device infection that required explantation. In contrast, only 3% of those who did not have colonization developed an infection afterward (P = .038). Longer percutaneous testing period was associated with a greater colonization rate. Of the 10 patients who underwent >14 days of staged testing, 5 (50%) developed connector and/or lead colonization. However, only 4 of the 28 patients (14%) who underwent ≤ 14 days of testing did so (P = .036, relative risk 3.5, 95% confidence interval 1.2-10.5).

CONCLUSION

The risk of InterStim colonization is significant using the staged, tined lead testing approach. Testing for >14 days between the 2 stages was associated with greater colonization rates. Patients should be evaluated on an ongoing basis during staged testing, with attempts to perform generator implantation once efficacy has been unequivocally demonstrated to reduce the risk of colonization.

Long-term device outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation following prior explantation for erosion or infection

PURPOSE

We evaluated clinical outcomes in patients treated with artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation after artificial urinary sphincter explantation for erosion or infection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 704 consecutive artificial urinary sphincter implantation procedures performed at our institution from 1998 to 2012, including 497 (71%) as primary implantation and 138 (20%) as revision surgery for device malfunction. A total of 69 patients (10%) had undergone at least 1 prior artificial urinary sphincter explantation secondary to urethral erosion and/or device infection, of whom 36 (52%) were treated with 2 to 5 prior reimplantation procedures. Patient followup was performed through office examination, or written or telephone correspondence.

RESULTS

Patients treated with artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation had a median age of 78 years (IQR 72, 80) and a median followup of 34 months (IQR 5, 61). Artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation was done a median of 9 months (IQR 6, 13) after explantation. Patients treated with reimplantation after erosion or infection were more likely to require repeat explantation than those with primary implantation (13 of 69 or 19% vs 32 of 497 or 6.4%, p = 0.002). However, when evaluating repeat procedures, the 5-year device survival rate after reimplantation due to erosion or infection vs primary implantation was 68% vs 76% (p = 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation after explantation for urethral erosion and/or device infection is associated with an increased rate of recurrent erosion/infection requiring repeat explantation. However, in appropriately selected and counseled patients clinically acceptable long-term device use can be achieved.

The current role of the artificial urinary sphincter in male and female urinary incontinence

The evolution of the artificial urinary sphincter has affected the current surgical options for urinary incontinence. With its unique features, the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has been an attractive option for the treatment of urinary incontinence regardless of gender. The current paper discusses the indications, contraindications, types of devices, surgical approaches, outcomes, and complications of the AUS in the treatment of both male and female urinary incontinence. A PubMed review of the available literature was performed and articles reporting implantation of artificial urinary sphincters for urinary incontinence in both male and female patients were evaluated. There was a comparable satisfactory continence rate after the implantation of an AUS (59~97% in males vs. 60~92% in females). In comparison, there were some differences in the indications, contraindications, surgical approaches, outcomes, and complications of the AUS implanted for urinary incontinence in male and female patients. AUS implantation is a safe and effective surgical option for the treatment of urinary incontinence of various etiologies. Continuous evolution of the device has made it an attractive option for the treatment of both male and female urinary incontinence.

Urethral buttressing in patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter surgery

PURPOSE

We evaluated the safety and feasibility of what we believe to be a novel technique of buttressing the urethra with a fibrin coated collagen fleece in patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the presence of urethral atrophy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 17 consecutive men were treated with urethral buttressing for urethral atrophy during artificial urinary sphincter surgery. Continence, complications and patient reported outcomes were assessed by preoperative and postoperative pad use, chart review, patient interview and validated questionnaires.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD followup was 38 ± 3.0 months (median 34, range 23 to 71). One patient was excluded from further evaluation due to accidental iatrogenic urethral injury elsewhere. At 3-month followup the mean improvement in pad use was 5 ± 0.5 pads (median 5, range 2 to 9). Of 16 patients 9 (56%) and 2 (13%) used 1 and 0 pad per day, respectively. According to the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire, 12 of 16 patients (75%) described their condition as much or very much better after surgery. Mean ± SD postoperative Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and Urogenital Distress Index scores were 2 ± 0.8 (median 1, range 0 to 11) and 4 ± 1.0 (median 3, range 0 to 11), respectively. No intraoperative complications were observed. During followup 2 of 16 patients (13%) underwent placement of a second cuff due to unsatisfactory postoperative continence, 1 (6%) underwent artificial urinary sphincter revision for clean urethral erosion and 1 (6%) underwent revision for pump malfunction.

CONCLUSIONS

Urethral buttressing with a collagen fleece appears to be a safe, feasible option for urethral atrophy in patients treated with artificial urinary sphincter implantation or revision.

Complex artificial urinary sphincter revision and reimplantation cases--how do they fare compared to virgin cases?

PURPOSE

We compared artificial urinary sphincter complication rates, overall reoperative rates, and continence results in virgin cases, revision cases and secondary reimplant cases (with prior erosion or infection).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Only male patients with post-prostatectomy stress incontinence with AMS 800™ placement in the bulbar urethra by a single surgeon were included in the study. A total of 169 virgin cases (no prior artificial urinary sphincter surgery), 37 revision cases (eg cuff revision for urethral atrophy, revision of failed components) and 21 secondary reimplant cases (eg after prior explant from urethral erosion or infection) were compared.

RESULTS

Secondary artificial urinary sphincter reimplant cases (eg after prior explant from urethral erosion or infection) had fourfold higher future erosion rates compared to virgin cases (p = 0.02, 14.3% vs 3.6%, RR 4.02). In addition, there was no difference in the rates of other complications (device infection, urethral atrophy, mechanical failure, leaks), overall reoperation rates and postoperative continence outcomes (measured by daily pad use) compared to virgin cases. Artificial urinary sphincter revision cases did not have higher complication rates (including subsequent urethral erosion), reoperation rates or worse postoperative continence outcomes compared to virgin cases. Although the difference was not statistically significant, a trend toward higher future device leak rates (10.8% vs 3.6%, RR 3.05, p = 0.063) and higher urethral atrophy rates (16.2% vs 8.9%, RR 1.83, p = 0.18) was noted in artificial urinary sphincter revision cases compared to virgin implant cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a history of artificial urinary sphincter explant have a fourfold increased risk of future cuff erosion. Nevertheless, a good functional outcome with an acceptable complication rate may be achieved in most complex reoperative artificial urinary sphincter cases.

Treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence

The diagnosis and management of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is complex. Various etiologies exist, with radical prostatectomy being the most common cause in men seeking treatment. SUI in this setting is often temporary and resolves within the first postoperative year. Therefore, it is important to understand the natural history of male SUI before initiating treatment. Generally, the initial management of SUI that persists after 12 months consists of conservative measures, such as pelvic floor muscle exercises. Several treatments are available for men whose continence does not improve after pelvic floor muscle exercises. In order of increasing complexity they are urethral bulking agents, male slings, and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). With over 30 years of published data suggesting excellent long-term outcomes, the AUS is considered the gold standard treatment of male SUI. Male slings have recently demonstrated efficacy for selected patients and are likely to be used more often in the future as experience with these devices grows.

Artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800) implantation for women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: a technique for insiders?

Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation is one of several surgical options for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. It is indicated for women with both clinically and urodynamically defined intrinsic sphincter deficiency that significantly affects quality of life. The erosion/revision risk increases after several previous surgical interventions. Therefore, women believed to be candidates for AUS implantation should be rapidly (after the failure of a maximum of two previous surgical procedures) referred to specialized centres, where the knowledge and experience concerning the diagnosis, surgery and management of female stress urinary incontinence is concentrated. To refer correctly, non-academic urologists/gynaecologists should also be well informed about AUS implantation. Only in this way can the patient weigh the high long-term success rate and high quality of life improvement of AUS implantation against the greater complication/revision risk and take a well-considered decision.

Surgery Insight: surgical management of postprostatectomy incontinence--the artificial urinary sphincter and male sling

Stress urinary incontinence in men is usually a result of intrinsic sphincter deficiency following prostate cancer surgery. Active conservative management with fluid restriction, medication management and pelvic floor exercises is indicated for the first 12 months. If bothersome incontinence persists, urodynamic evaluation is indicated in order to assess detrusor storage function, contractility and sphincteric integrity. Standard surgical options include urethral bulking agents, artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and male sling. Periurethral injection of bulking agents is satisfactory in only a minority of patients, leaving AUS and male sling as the most common surgical treatments. In patients with severe urinary incontinence, AUS seems to have a higher rate of success than the male sling. Furthermore, AUS is indicated in men with detrusor hypocontractility as adequate detrusor contractility is needed to overcome the fixed resistance of the sling. In patients with milder levels of stress incontinence, the two techniques have approximately equal efficacy in the short-to-intermediate term. While current reports of the male sling are generally limited to 1-4 years' follow-up, the infection, erosion, and revision rate for the male sling seem somewhat lower than that for the AUS in appropriately chosen patients.

13 years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine

PURPOSE

We reviewed 13 years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation (narrow backed cuff) at a single institution.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 1992 and 2005, 270 patients underwent artificial urinary sphincter implantation, as performed by a single surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, and followup data were available on 218 of them. Mean followup was 36.5 months (maximum 151.4). Of the 218 patients 60 underwent prostatectomy and pelvic radiation, 116 underwent prostatectomy without radiotherapy, 11 had neurogenic bladder and 31 underwent secondary artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

RESULTS

The complication rate did not differ among the 4 treatment groups. Complication rates were infection in 5.5% of cases, erosion in 6.0%, urethral atrophy in 9.6%, mechanical failure in 6.0% and surgical removal or revision in 27.1%. Median time to complications was 3.7 months for infection, 19.8 months for erosion, 29.6 months for atrophy, 68.1 months for failure and 14.4 months for surgery. At 5 years 75% of patients were free from revision or removal. A history of failed injectable or male sling, or of Valsalva voiding did not adversely impact the outcome. The rate of bladder neck contracture was high in artificial urinary sphincter candidates, especially in irradiated patients (36% and 57%, respectively). Patients with prior pelvic radiation continued to be at higher risk for contracture recurrence after artificial urinary sphincter implantation (12%). Two-stage UroLume stent and artificial urinary sphincter placement offered long-term contracture and continence control in 8 of 11 patients with recurrent anastomotic contractures.

CONCLUSIONS

An artificial urinary sphincter is durable treatment for sphincter deficiency even in patients with a history of complications, neurogenic bladder, pelvic radiation, bladder neck contracture, Valsalva voiding, or failed injectables or slings.

Outcomes following erosions of the artificial urinary sphincter

PURPOSE

Artificial urinary sphincter urethral cuff erosion occurs in up to 5.0% of cases, presenting a complex management problem. We examine our experience with the eroded AUS, relating to preoperative risk factors, operative management and outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 637 patients undergoing bulbar urethral AUS implantation from 1990 to 2003 for demographic and surgical variables.

RESULTS

Of the 637 records reviewed, 46 patients underwent 54 explantations of the AUS device for erosions, including 13 who had the primary implant performed at our institution and 33 being referred for management of erosion after implantation elsewhere. Our institution erosion rate was 2.2%. Mean followup after AUS reimplant following erosion was 27.8 months (range 1 to 180). Comorbidities were more prevalent in patients with erosions included hypertension (p = 0.006), coronary artery disease (p = 0.03), prior radiation therapy (p = 0.006) and prior AUS revisions (p = 0.0001). A majority of patients had persistent mild incontinence (0 to 1 pad daily in 29 or 56.8%), moderate (1 to 3 pads daily in 9 or 17.4%) and severe (more than 3 pads daily in 6 or 11.8%) incontinence after secondary AUS implantation. Patients who underwent reimplantation after AUS cuff erosions have a significantly higher rate of second erosions (in 16, 34.8%) within an average of 6.7 months (range 3 to 24), including our own 11.8% institutional rate (in 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that patients with comorbidities including hypertension, coronary artery disease, prior radiation therapy and prior AUS revisions are more likely to have erosions of their AUS. Nevertheless, continence can still be salvaged using various strategies which optimize use of the remaining healthy urethral tissue.

Management of male incontinence following artificial urinary sphincter failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The artificial urinary sphincter has been used successfully for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in both male and female patients. Its most common use, however, is in men suffering from postprostatectomy incontinence.

RECENT FINDINGS

The success rates, long-term durability, and patient satisfaction for the artificial urinary sphincter are high. The incidence of complications and adverse events remains low although they are sometimes unavoidable.

SUMMARY

We believe that continence can be salvaged in the majority of men in whom the device fails or requires explantation and we present the logical analysis for device revision and relocation in this review.

Outcomes following revisions and secondary implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter

PURPOSE

Durable success with the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is common but device revision and replacement are often needed for various reasons. We examined indications and outcomes following these secondary procedures with comparisons to outcomes after primary procedures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The medical records of all patients undergoing primary and secondary bulbar urethral AUS implantation and revision from January 1990 to September 2002 were reviewed for various demographic and surgical variables. Female patients and males with bladder neck cuffs were excluded from study.

RESULTS

Of 554 men undergoing AUS implantation or revision 119 (21.4%) underwent a total of 159 secondary procedures. Reasons for revision were mechanical failure in 31 cases (25.2%) and nonmechanical failure in 88 (73.9%). The latter included recurrent incontinence due to urethral atrophy in 63 cases (52.9%) and erosion in 21 (17.6%). Total device replacement was performed in 75 cases (47.2%). Of 119 patients undergoing secondary implantation 91 (76.5%) needed no additional surgical intervention, while 28 (23.5%) required a total of 40 surgical revisions for new mechanical (15 or 37.5%) and nonmechanical (25 or 62.5%) problems. Five-year durability outcomes for primary and secondary AUS implantation were comparable at 80% and 88%, respectively. Similarly excellent continence outcomes (0 to 1 pad daily) were noted in 90% and 82% of patients undergoing primary and secondary AUS implantation, respectively. Secondary and tertiary AUS revisions resulted in the restoration of baseline continence in 106 cases (89%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that outcomes for secondary AUS reimplantation are comparable to those of primary AUS implantation and salvage of a good outcome is always probable, even following multiple prior revisions and cuff erosion.

Combined external urethral bulking and artificial urinary sphincter for urethral atrophy and stress urinary incontinence

OBJECTIVE

To describe a technique of externally bulking the urethra with a soft-tissue graft before placing another artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), as when placing another AUS for recurrent male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) other manoeuvres, e.g. placing a tandem cuff or transcorporal cuff, must be used to obtain urinary continence in an atrophic urethra, and each is associated with morbidity.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2003 to July 2004, five patients (mean age 74 years, range 62-84) treated by radical prostatectomy were referred for recurrent SUI after placing an AUS (four, including one with urethral erosion) or a male sling (one, with a resulting atrophic urethra). Each patient was treated with an external urethral bulking agent (Surgisis) ES, Cook Urological, Spencer, Indiana) and had an AUS placed.

RESULTS

In each patient the greatest urethral circumference was <4 cm. To place a functional 4 cm cuff, the diameter of the urethra was enhanced by wrapping it with Surgisis ES. Continence was significantly improved in all patients except one 84-year-old man who had the replanted artificial sphincter removed because of erosion 14 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In cases of severe recurrent SUI from urethral atrophy after placing an AUS, externally bulking the urethra with Surgisis ES before placing another AUS is well tolerated, and gives satisfactory results.

Tandem cuff artificial urinary sphincter as a salvage procedure following failed primary sphincter placement for the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence

PURPOSE

Management of post-artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) urethral atrophy can be difficult for the treating physician, yielding unsatisfactory results for the patient. As with many incontinence procedures, initial results are generally encouraging. We determined the durability and success of tandem cuff placement for urethral atrophy following AUS placement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the records of 18 patients with a mean age 74 years who underwent tandem AUS placement from 1994 to 2001. Mean followup was 3.3 years. All patients originally underwent AUS placement for post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence and they had subsequent incontinence secondary to urethral atrophy. Adjuvant radiation in 3 cases, hormone therapy in 3, cuff size and pressure, and multiple continence procedures prior to tandem cuff placement in 5 were evaluated as risk factors for cuff erosion. Long-term followup was obtained through office examination and telephone interview using a standardized questionnaire regarding voiding habits and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Following tandem cuff placement mean +/- SD pad use daily decreased from 4.3 +/- 0.35 (median 3) to 1.6 +/- 0.42 (median 1) (p <0.0001). Overall 10 of the 18 patients (56%) needed 1 pad or less daily, 16 (88%) would have the tandem cuff placed again and 17 (94%) would recommend the procedure. Median subjective improvement and satisfaction was 4.7 and 4.0, respectively, on a scale of 0 to 5. Reoperation was required for cuff leakage in 1 case and cuff erosion in 2. One patient with erosion had 3 prior AUS revisions, including placement of a 71 to 80 cc balloon reservoir.

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of tandem urethral cuff as a salvage procedure for recurrent stress urinary incontinence provides marked sustained improvement in leakage and overall high patient satisfaction in the difficult setting of urethral atrophy.

Periurethral collagen injections for incontinence following radical prostatectomy: does the patient benefit?

Promising early results have been reported with periurethral collagen injections in the treatment of incontinence after radical prostatectomy. However, a significant proportion of patients does not benefit from this minimally invasive option. Recently, the results of longer follow-up studies have become available in some series. Investigators have also attempted to identify the prognostic factors of success. This review reports the latest advances on periurethral collagen injections in the treatment of incontinence after radical prostatectomy.

Reconstructive surgery using urological prostheses

Urological prostheses have been available and widely used for the past two decades. The use of penile prostheses, artificial urinary sphincters, and testicular implants for genitourinary reconstruction for erectile dysfunction, incontinence, and orchiectomy have been successful, widely used and of low morbidity. More recently designed devices, innovations in implantation techniques, and improved intraoperative and postoperative care have resulted in the successful worldwide use of these prosthetic devices.