Superficial Implantation of the I-Stop TOMS Transobturator Sling in the Treatment of Postprostatectomy Urinary Incontinence: Description of a Novel Technique and 1-Year Outcomes

Comparison of Different Invasive Devices for the Treatment of Urinary Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy

Purpose

To compare different forms of invasive treatments for postradical prostatectomy (RP) urinary incontinence (UI) in terms of quantitative and qualitative parameters and continence recovery rate.

Methods

We distinguished five categories of treatment: A = bulking agents, B = fixed slings, C = adjustable slings, D = circumferential compressor devices (artificial sphincter), and E = noncircumferential compressor devices (ProACT). A literature search was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We performed a cumulative meta-analysis to explore the trend in the effect sizes across groups at postoperative follow-up. We compared the available treatment arms using standardized mean difference (SMD) and event rate (ER) for questionnaire results, number of pads/day, and percentage of pad-free patients. Evidence synthesis. 36 clinical trials were selected. At baseline, in the different populations, mean number of pad-day varied from 1.1 to 8.8, 24-hour pad weight varied extremely from 17.3 g to 747.0 g, and mean ICIQ-UI-SF questionnaire score varied from 4.8 to 18.6. Considering a random effect model among eligible studies, ER of continence recovery was 0.33 (95% CI −0.12–0.78), 0.63 (95% CI 0.55–0.71), 0.65 (95% CI 0.58–0.72), 0.50 (95% CI 0.34–0.66), and 0.53 (95%CI 0.36–0.70), respectively, in groups A, B, C, D, and E (I² 85.87%; Q 249.82—P > 0.01) (test of group differences P=0.22).

Conclusion

In our analysis, the use of adjustable and fixed slings is associated with the highest whereas the use of bulking agents is associated with the lowest recovery rate of continence after treatment. Results are conditioned by an elevated rate of heterogeneity in part explained with a high variability of consistence in urinary leakage at baseline among populations.

Sling Surgery for Male Urinary Incontinence Including Post Prostatectomy Incontinence: A Challenge to the Urologist

The management of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) is still challenging for urologists. In recent decades, various kinds of male sling system have been developed and introduced; however, they have not yet shown as good a result as that of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). However, a male sling is still in an important position because patients have a high demand for sling implantation, and it can allow the avoidance of the use of mechanical devices like AUS. Recently, the male sling has been widely used in mild-to-moderate PPI patients; however, there are no studies that compare individual devices. Thus, it is hard to directly compare the success rate of operation, and it is impossible to judge which sling system is more excellent. It is expected that many sling options will be available in addition to AUS in the near future with the technological development of various male slings and the accumulation of long-term surgical outcomes. In that in patients with PPI, sling implantation is an option that must be explained rather than an option that need not be explained to them, this review would share the latest outcomes and complications.

Male Slings for Postprostatectomy Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Male slings are recommended by the European Association of Urology guideline for the treatment of mild to moderate postprostatectomy incontinence. However, none of them has been proved to be superior to the others, and there are no defined guidelines to preference of a given sling model.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of the different types of male slings in the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. A systematic literature search in the databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane using the keywords "incontinence," "prostatectomy," and "male sling/system" was conducted in June 2018. Studies in English with at least 15 patients and a minimum follow-up of 12 mo were included. As the primary endpoint, we assessed the cure rate of the different sling types. As secondary endpoints, we assessed the improvement rate, subjective cure rate, overall complication rate, explantation rate, risk factors for failure, and effect on patients' quality of life.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

The literature search identified 833 articles. A total of 64 studies with 72 patient cohorts were eligible for inclusion. Fixed slings were implanted in 55 (76.4%) of the patient cohorts. The objective cure rate varies between 8.3% and 87% (pooled estimate 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.56, I²=82%). Subjective cure was achieved in 33-94.4%. Adjustable slings showed objective cure rates between 17% and 92% (pooled estimate 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.71, I²=88%). The subjective cure rate varies between 28% and 100%. In both types of slings, pain was the most common complication, but chronic painful conditions were really rare (1.3% in fixed slings and 1.5% in adjustable slings). The most common complication after pain was urinary retention in fixed slings, and infection and consequential explantation in adjustable slings.

CONCLUSIONS

Both fixed and adjustable slings are beneficial for the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence. Although adjustable slings might lead to higher objective cure rates, they might be associated with higher complication and explantation rates. However, at present, due to significant heterogeneity of the data, this cannot be said with certainty. More randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up and the same definition for continence are needed.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Fixed and adjustable slings are effective treatment options in mild to moderate postprostatectomy incontinence.

The role of male slings in post prostatectomy incontinence: ICI-RS 2015

AIMS

Post prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence can significantly impact on quality of life and is bothersome for patients. The artificial urinary sphincter is still considered the gold standard surgical treatment. Male slings are an alternative surgical option and several designs are currently available. This review will focus on efficacy, adverse events, and mechanism of action of male slings. The context of this review was a proposal at the ICI-RS meeting 2015. Following synthesis of the evidence we address the question: does it matter how male slings work?

METHODS

The proposal lecture was reviewed and a comprehensive review of the literature undertaken utilising the PubMed database.

RESULTS

Male slings can be broadly divided into adjustable retropubic and suburethral transobturator slings. Male slings are efficacious and can improve quality of life. Adjustable retropubic slings appear to be compressive but studies suggest efficacy can be achieved without voiding dysfunction. Transobturator slings work by urethral compression and/or re-locating the urethral bulb. There is a recognized failure rate in all sling types and most studies suggest radiotherapy as a risk factor for failure. Adjustable slings have the ability to be altered to optimize continence or to prevent retention of urine. However, there appears to be a higher explantation rate in some of these systems.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to understand how male slings work and by doing so we are more reliably able to choose the appropriate sling, predict outcomes, and as a result counsel patients. Suggestions for future research are proposed.

Outcome Measures of Adjustable Transobturator Male System with Pre-attached Scrotal Port for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective Study

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to report outcome measures with third-generation pre-attached scrotal port adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

A prospective open study was conducted on consecutive patients. Evaluation included cough test, urethroscopy, filling and voiding cystometry, 24-h pad count and pad test, patient-reported outcomes (ICIQ-SF, IIQ-7, PGI, GRA, and VAS), complications according to the Clavien-Dindo system, operative results, number of adjustments, and filling of the system.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients with median pad test 510 (170-1225) ml were operated on. Preoperative SUI was mild (5.9%), moderate (17.6%), and severe (76.5%). At median 18.5 (12-26) months follow-up distribution of SUI was none (85.3%), mild (8.8%), and moderate (5.9%). Median intraoperative filling was 14 (8-17) ml, number of adjustments 1 (0-5), and total filling 17.5 (11-33.5) ml. At 3 months, median ICIQ-SF (p = 0.0001) and IIQ-7 (p < 0.0001) decreased. At 12 months, 24-h pad count and pad test decreased (both p < 0.0001), residual volume slightly increased (p = 0.018), PGI-I was 1 (1-3), GRA 6 (3-6), and 97% were satisfied with treatment. Continence (p = 0.016) and satisfaction (p = 0.09) were worse in irradiated patients. Median operative time was 67 (35-120) min, hospital stay 1 (1-3) days, and VAS for pain on postoperative day 1 was 0 (0-2). Complications presented in 14.7% (8.8% grade I and 5.9% grade III).

CONCLUSION

Treatment of severe male SUI after radical prostatectomy with pre-attached scrotal port ATOMS is safe and very effective in the short term. A positive cough test before implant and intraoperative overfilling of the system may optimize patient selection and results.