[Etiology and pathophysiology of male stress incontinence]

Complications after male adjustable suburethral sling implantation

Introduction

Argus suburethral sling implantation is a minimally invasive operation with the possibility to adjust the tension of the sling at any time after the procedure, which provides good treatment results for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

Aim

To determine the predictive factors, the incidence, severity and timing of the onset of complications after Argus sling implantation for males with post-operative SUI.

Material and methods

A total of 41 patients who underwent Argus sling implantation due to post-operative SUI were included. Median follow-up was 12 months. All complications were captured and graded according to severity and classified by timing of onset. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of the most common side effects.

Results

Overall 22 (54%) of 41 males have experienced 31 complications. Three (7%) patients have experienced only intra-operative, 16 (39%) patients only post-operative and 3 (7%) patients both intra-operative and post-operative complications. The most common intra-operative complications were bladder perforation (12%) and external iliac vein injury (5%), while post-operative complications were acute urinary retention (29%), infection (10%) and perineal pain (7%). Previous radiotherapy has significantly increased the risk of intra-operative complications, while a non-significant tendency was observed for younger age, previous androgen deprivation therapy and grade 3 SUI. In terms of severity, most post-operative complications were classified as grade 3 according to the modified Clavien-Dindo system.

Conclusions

Argus sling implantation provides a tolerable complication rate, where acute urinary retention was the most common side effect. Previous radiotherapy significantly increases the risk of serious intra-operative complications.

Adjustable sling for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: systematic review and meta-analysis

Urinary incontinence after prostatectomy has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of the patient. The surgical treatment includes several models of male slings, such as adjustable slings. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of adjustable sling in the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. This is a systematic review of literature. The following electronic databases were searched until January 2018: PubMed®, Embase, CENTRAL and LILACS. The keywords used in the search strategies were: "prostatectomy" [Mesh], "urinary incontinence" [Mesh] and "suburethral slings" [Mesh]. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies, with or without Control Group, and follow-up of more than 12 months were included. Only one randomized study with high risk of bias was included and it concluded the effectiveness equivalence between adjustable and non-adjustable slings. All other studies were cases series with patients of varying levels of incontinence intensity and history of pelvic radiation therapy and previous surgeries. The meta-analysis for 0 pad in 24 hours demonstrated an effectiveness of 53%. For the 0 to 1 pad test in 24 hours, the meta-analysis resulted in an effectiveness of 69%. Risk factors for surgery failure include prior radiation, severity of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, and previous surgeries. The meta-analysis of the extrusion rate was 9.8% and the most commonly reported adverse effects were pain and local infection. Evidence of low quality indicates that adjustable slings are effective for treating post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence, with frequency of adverse events similar to the surgical option considered gold standard (the artificial urinary sphincter implant).

Postprostatectomy incontinence: all about diagnosis and management

CONTEXT

The ever-increasing number of radical prostatectomies entails an increasing number of patients suffering from postprostatectomy stress incontinence despite improved surgical techniques. We provide an overview of the current diagnosis and treatment of postprostatectomy stress incontinence.

OBJECTIVE

To review previous and recent literature on this subject and to assess the current standards of diagnosis and management of postprostatectomy incontinence.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The PubMed database was searched, and all articles published since 2000 were evaluated.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

This review presents the current recommended diagnostic tools and available noninvasive and invasive treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

The European Association of Urology (EAU) recommends a two-stage assessment for diagnosis of postprostatectomy incontinence. Noninvasive therapy, pelvic floor-muscle training and biofeedback, is recommended in early postoperative and mild incontinence. Pharmacological treatment with duloxetine is especially effective in combination with physiotherapy, where it synergistically improves the continence rate. For surgical treatment, the insertion of an artificial urinary sphincter, AS-800, is still the gold standard. In recent years, several minimal invasive treatment options have been introduced with different rates of success, but they have not yet surpassed the results of the artificial sphincter.

[Dysfunctions of artificial urinary sphincters (AMS 800) and their management via a transscrotal access. Optimum procedure illustrated by reference to clinical examples]

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a transscrotal access for implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) offers an alternative to the perineal approach for dealing with post-prostatectomy incontinence. Should a revision be necessary, the entire implant can be explored via this access and only one incision is needed. The aim of our study was to present the advantage of the transscrotal approach in different malfunctions of AUSs (AMS 800).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Surgical exploration was exemplary indicated in three male patients because of recurrent incontinence after artificial sphincter implantation. The reasons for malfunction were urethral atrophy, a mechanical defect of the device, and urethral erosion of the cuff, which led to explantation via the perineal approach of the entire artificial sphincter system. The patient whose sphincter system had a mechanical defect had the entire system substituted by the transscrotal route. In the case of perineal explantation a complete new AMS 800 system was implanted transscrotally at the unaffected bulbar ureter following complete healing. In the case of urethral atrophy a tandem-cuff was implanted by a transscrotal approach. Because of mechanical complications the whole system was exchanged, a completely new AUS (AMS 800) system being implanted by the transscrotal approach after perineal explantation.

RESULTS

There were no complications of any of the revision operations. The postoperative course was uneventful and after activation of the system all patients regained their former continence status. Three months after implantation all patients remained continent and their AMS 800 sphincter systems were fully functional.

CONCLUSION

When a revision operation is needed, the transscrotal access offers a quick and easy alternative to the perineal method. Our patients had no postoperative complications, and their continence rates were satisfactory. Further studies are needed to reveal whether this approach will prove superior to the perineal approach in the long term.