Tips for operation of inguinal hernia after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter following radical prostatectomy: report of two cases

Inguinal hernia repair in patients with artificial urinary sphincter after radical prostatectomy

PURPOSE

Stress urinary incontinence (UI) often develops after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, and in those patients with moderate-to-severe stress UI an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is implanted. Inguinal hernias (IHs) often occur after radical prostatectomy. As the prevalence of AUS implantation increases, it is possible to encounter patients with IHs undergoing AUS implantation (IHA). This study investigated our treatment and discussed an appropriate approach for IHAs.

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent IH repair with AUS implantation at our hospital from January 2018 to March 2023. We classified IHAs into Types A-D based on the positions of the IHs and AUS devices (the positions of the control pump, pressure-regulating balloon, and connecting tube). The hernia and control pump were ipsilateral in Types A and B, whereas the hernia and pressure-regulating balloon were ipsilateral in Types A and C.

RESULTS

This study included 12 IHs of 11 patients. The median patient age was 77 years. We conducted open repair in nine patients with all types and laparoscopic repair in two patients with Type B. The median operation times for unilateral and bilateral repairs were 96 and 182 min, respectively. There were no complications with AUS or hernia surgeries.

CONCLUSION

IHA has its own characteristics, and multidisciplinary knowledge thereof will help surgeons safely perform IH surgery.

Management of urologic prosthetic reservoirs at the time of inguinal or pelvic surgery

INTRODUCTION

The artificial urinary sphincter and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis each require a fluid storage component and thus have components in the inguinal and pelvic regions. Because of this, patients with urologic prosthetics sometimes present challenges during future nonprosthetic operations. Presently, there is no established guideline for device management with ensuing inguinal or pelvic surgery.

AIMS

This article outlines concerns during pelvic and inguinal surgery for patients with an artificial urinary sphincter and/or inflatable penile prosthesis and proposes an algorithm for preoperative surgical planning and decision making.

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of the literature on operative management of these prosthetic devices. Publications were identified by searching electronic databases. Only peer-reviewed publications available in English were considered for this review.

RESULTS

We review the important considerations as well as available options for operative management of these prosthetic devices during subsequent nonprosthetic surgery and highlight the advantages and disadvantages of each. Finally, we suggest a framework for helping surgeons determine which management strategy is most appropriate for their individual patients.

CONCLUSION

The best management strategy will differ depending on patient values, the planned surgery, and patient-specific factors. Surgeons should understand and counsel patients on all available options and encourage informed, shared decision making to determine the best individualized approach.