The Asia-Pacific AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter consensus statement

Treatment strategies for revision surgery of artificial urinary sphincter: A review

Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) are an effective treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). However, infection, erosion, mechanical failure, atrophy, and balloon deterioration cause device malfunction in approximately half of patients by 10 years after implantation. Many patients desire to regain urinary continence and require revision surgery (RS), including device removal and simultaneous or delayed implantation. Patients for whom RS is considered should be examined physically and by interview for signs of infection. Urethral erosion should be assessed using cystoscopy. If there is infection or erosion, all devices should be removed first, and a new device should be implanted several months later. During the RS, after strong adhesion around the urethra, transcorporal cuff implantation is a safe choice. Device removal and simultaneous implantation can be performed in the absence of infection or erosion. If a long time has passed since device implantation, the entire device should be replaced due to device aging and deterioration; however, if the time is short, only the defective component need be replaced. Intraoperative assessment of urethral health is necessary for device removal and implantation. If the urethra is healthy, a new cuff can be placed in the same position as the old cuff was removed from; however, if the urethra is unhealthy, the cuff can be implanted in a more proximal/distal position, or a transcorporal cuff implant may be chosen. This article reviews the literature on diagnostic and treatment strategies for recurrent SUI in male patients with AUS and proposes a flowchart for AUS revision.

Artificial urinary sphincter: recent developments and the way forward

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The AMS 800 has dominated the treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) for five decades. A narrative review from June 2022 to June 2024 was conducted using 'artificial urinary sphincter' (AUS) MeSH terms in Embase. We extracted information on innovative AUS, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies, and systematic reviews. We evaluated the latest guidelines and consensus and analyzed current trends to discuss options for advancing AUS practices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Of 465 papers identified, 320 were excluded (irrelevant, duplicates, non-AUS devices, non-English, veterinary), and 145 were reviewed, with 24 selected: seven on novel AUS in development, 7 with higher-level evidence (1 RCT, 1 prospective, 4 systematic reviews, 1 nonsystematic review), and 9 retrospective relevant studies [pressure regulating balloon (PRB), revision strategies, radiotherapy history, manual dexterity/cognition, transscrotal vs. transperineal approach]. The final paper summarized current guidelines from Asia & Pacific on AUS.

SUMMARY

In the past 2 years, six novel AUS have emerged, two female RCTs are ongoing, the SATURN study published its 1-year outcomes, and four systematic reviews on female AUS were conducted. These findings enhance evidence levels and position novel AUS to challenge the Gold Standard.

Prevalence and risk factors for overactive bladder symptoms in patients with artificial urinary sphincter

To demonstrate the prevalence and risk factors for overactive bladder symptoms associated with artificial urinary sphincter implantation, we investigated the patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation with severe urinary stress incontinence. Forty-eight patients who completely answered the questionnaires of the overactive bladder symptom score before surgery were included. Patient characteristics, urinary status at pre and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-device activation, and predictive factors for overactive bladder symptoms were examined. Sixty percent of the patients had preoperative overactive bladder symptoms. Until 12 months after device activation, 35-40% of all patients had overactive bladder symptoms. The rate of persistent and de novo postoperative overactive bladder symptoms was 44.8% and 26.3%, respectively. Daily pad use was not different between patients w/wo overactive bladder symptoms. The only risk factor for postoperative overactive bladder symptoms was a max cystometoric capacity < 200 mL measured by a preoperative urodynamic study. Attention must be given to both persistent and de novo overactive bladder symptoms associated with artificial urinary sphincter implantation for patients with stress incontinence. Counsel should equally be provided for preoperative overactive bladder symptoms, especially in cases with a cystometric capacity < 200 mL.

Surgical strategies in artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery: troubleshooting the complications

Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) is an important issue in the urological practice and imposes a negative effect on quality of life (QoL). Despite recent technological advances, PPUI remains a common complication and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is regarded as the most effective long-term surgical treatment for moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence. Success rates for AUS as defined by a continence status of zero to one pad per day range from 59% to 90%. One potential downside of the AUS is the need for periodic revisions in a number of patients. Revision and explantation rates due to mechanical failure, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion vary considerably among studies with reports of 8-45% and 7-17%, respectively. These complications can be classified into different categories, including recurrent or refractory incontinence, erosion and/or infection, and other complications. This review article aims to describe the main AUS-related complications and their management strategies. Diagnostic work-up strategies are explored to facilitate timely identification and management of these complications. Additionally, emerging technologies and future directions in AUS development are discussed, highlighting potential advancements to mitigate complications and enhance device performance. This review consolidates current knowledge and provides insights for clinicians to manage the complexities associated with AUS therapy effectively.

A narrative review on synchronous concurrent versus delayed sequential surgery in the artificial urinary sphincter and penile prosthesis implantation

Background and Objective

In a patient who complains of both stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and erectile dysfunction (ED), prosthetic surgery with a urinary continence device and penile prosthesis implant can offer a definitive solution to address both problems. The AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) device is considered the standard of care to restore SUI while the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device is thought to be superior to a malleable prosthesis to provide a more natural penile erection with higher patient satisfaction rates. The following article explores the current understanding of AMS 800 AUS surgery and IPP device in treating males with concurrent SUI and ED as well as evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed or staged device implantation.

Methods

The available literature on AUS and IPP implantation was reviewed on PubMed and Embase databases between 1 January 2000 and 1 December 2022. This narrative review evaluates relevant key features pertaining to prosthetic surgery with an emphasis on arguments for concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed sequential surgery for AUS and IPP devices. Additionally, this paper provides a brief surgical description of the techniques and potential complications relating to both prosthetic procedures.

Key Content and Findings

While a great deal is known about the excellent outcomes of both AUS and IPP implantation, there is limited literature published on the outcomes of dual AUS and IPP surgery. The decision to proceed with concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed sequential two-stage implants is likely determined by the patient's preference, the surgeon's expertise, and the availability of prostheses. In either situation, patients should be counselled regarding the advantages and disadvantages of undergoing synchronous concurrent vs. delayed sequential implants and associated surgical challenges are likely dependent on the patient's anatomy and the surgeon's preference.

Conclusions

For carefully selected patients with SUI and ED, dual implantation of AUS and IPP provides a definitive treatment to address both conditions at the same time. Patients should be counselled regarding the advantages and disadvantages of synchronous concurrent vs. sequentially delayed implants while technical considerations regarding the sequence of prosthetic device surgery are likely dependent on the patient's factors and the surgeon's preference and surgical expertise.

Narrative review: evolution in device technology and advances in surgical techniques on AMS 800 device in the last 50 years

Background and Objective

The current AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) device is designed to simulate the function of the biological urinary sphincter to prevent urinary flow through mucosal coaptation, compression, and pressure transmission. The challenges in designing the AMS 800 device involve not only the mechanical operation of the artificial sphincter device but also producing a device that is effective, safe, and durable for patients in the long term. The following article provides a narrative review regarding the evolution and development of the AMS 800 devices over the years and evaluates the advances in surgical techniques relating to AMS 800 implantation.

Methods

Available literature pertaining to the AMS 800 device was reviewed from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases between 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. Emphasis is placed on key scientific publications including previous reviews and clinical guidelines relevant to AMS 800 device(s) and surgical techniques.

Key Content and Findings

From the engineering point of view, the current AMS 800 device is ingenious and has stood the test of time. The basic design of this modern AUS consists of 3 separate components namely a pressure regulating balloon (PRB), an inflatable cuff, and a control pump. Continued innovations in device design and technology, coupled with refinements in surgical techniques over the past 5 decades have ensured that the AMS 800 device is and remains the standard of care in male stress urinary incontinence. While the long-term AMS 800 efficacy, safety, and durability are well documented, it is not without its limitations and complications. Mechanical and non-mechanical complications can occur especially in high-risk populations (such as in radiated patients) despite strict adherence to surgical principles and manufacturer's guidelines.

Conclusions

Continued innovations in device design, technology, and surgical techniques have ensured that the AMS 800 device is an effective and safe treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Future directions in the treatment of male SUI likely reside in cellular regenerative therapy and nanotechnology to restore, replace, or simulate the damaged native urinary sphincter.

The male slings: an effective and safe alternative surgical treatment to the artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence?-a narrative review

Background and Objective

The ideal candidate for a male sling (MS) should have a mild to moderate degree of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This narrative review article evaluates the current MS devices in the commercial market and examines the role of MS as an effective and safe alternative treatment option for male SUI.

Methods

The available literature on MS was reviewed and relevant clinical studies pertaining to each MS were summarised with emphasis on device design and technology as well as specific surgical findings relating to clinical outcomes.

Key Content and Findings

Over the past two decades, there have been considerable scientific advances in MS design and technology, and MS is an attractive alternative for patients who might not require or want an artificial urinary sphincter. The modern MS can be classified as adjustable or non-adjustable types and is placed either through a retropubic or transobturator (TO) approach. Strict patient selection and counselling, selection of MS with proven clinical records, and safe surgical practice are paramount to ensure a high continence rate, good patient satisfaction, and low postoperative complications. Published data on various MS materials and devices showed reasonable clinical efficacy and safety outcomes, although many of these synthetic MS devices may not be available worldwide due to a lack of regulatory approval in many countries. While the ideal MS is probably yet to be developed, continued scientific advances in slings design, mesh technology, and more refined surgical techniques will improve the continence rate and deliver better safety records.

Conclusions

As clinical data matures with longer-term outcomes coupled with advances in scientific designs and technology, the ability to have and select the optimal MS for a particular patient will come to fruition.

Rigicon ContiClassic and ContiReflex artificial urinary sphincter devices

The modern AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is often considered the standard of care for the treatment of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence in male patients. Nonetheless, the AMS 800 device has several inherent limitations, and these factors can potentially impact its clinical utility and impede excellent clinical outcomes. The new Rigicon AUS devices such as ContiClassic and ContiReflex urinary sphincters are designed to overcome some of the existing issues pertaining to the AMS 800 device. The ContiClassic device is similar in terms of device design to the AMS 800 apart from the inclusion of a hydrophilic coating, has a greater range of cuff sizes with 0.25-cm diameter increments, and an Easy Clink Connectors which negates the need for an assembly tool. In contrast, The ContiReflex device differs from the ContiClassic model in that it features an extra stress relief balloon (SRB) to provide a safeguard on the urethral occlusive mechanism against any sudden increase in intra-abdominal pressure, and a larger pump system that is responsible to cycle fluid between the higher pressure two-balloon system and the sphincteric cuff. The following brief report evaluates the current device design and technology of the Rigicon ContiClassic and ContiReflex AUS devices.

Comparing the lifespan of virgin artificial urinary sphincters in radiated patients: transcorporal vs. standard placement

PURPOSE

To compare the lifespan of first transcorporal cuff (TC) placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus standard placement (SP) in patients with prior radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

We reviewed first (virgin) AUS placements from two high-volume care centers between 1/2011 and 1/2021, including PCa patients with RT history. AUS lifespan was assessed via the hazard ratio of device explantation and/or revision within a ten-year timeframe for the TC vs. SP approaches. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and t-tests compared clinicodemographic variables. Kaplan-Meier curve compared TC and SP lifespan.

RESULTS

85/314 men with AUS met inclusion criteria, with 38.8% (33/85) in the TC group and 61.2% (52/85) in the SP group. Median ages were 69.8 (IQR = 65.2-73.6) and 67.1 (61.6-72.9), respectively, p = 0.17. Over a median follow up of 51.9 (15.8-86.1) and 80.4 (28.1-128.3) months for the TC and SP, overall, 12 (36.4%) TC devices were removed (four [12.1%] due to mechanical failures; eight [24.2%] erosions, and two [6.1%] infections) vs. 29 (55.8%) in the SP group (14 [26.9%] mechanical failures; 11 [21.1%] erosions, and five [9.6%] infections). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two approaches, with HR = 0.717, 95% CI 0.37-1.44, p = 0.35. The calculated device survival probabilities for the TC vs. SP at one, five, and 10 years were 78.8% vs. 76.9%, 69.3% vs. 58.7%, and 62.1% vs. 46.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

TC cuff insertion for the first AUS implantation in pre-radiated patients showed to be comparable to SP when it comes to device survival, with comparable complication rates. Current guidance for approach selection is primarily based on patient selection and surgeon preference.

[Use of implants to treat male urinary incontinence]

Treatments for benign and malignant pathologies of the prostate can compromise urine control. Urinary incontinence (UI) affects the quality of life of patients and limits their ability to carry out usual activities. The degree of impact of UI is variable and the associated discomforts make patients seek treatment for it. At the center of the management of urinary incontinence in men are surgical interventions that seek to replace the affected sphincter function through implants. The artificial urinary sphincter since its development in the 1970s has been considered the standard of treatment for UI in men. More recently artificial sphincter and slings have been shown to be effective in a selected group of incontinent men. The goals of surgical treatment of incontinence include the preservation of bladder function, the ability to improve the strength of the urinary sphincter, and to reduce or eliminate urine leakage, and thereby improve the quality of life. The aim of the article is to present various implants for the correction of male urinary incontinence.

Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: Techniques, Indications, and Pearls for Success

Purpose

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has detrimental and long-lasting effects on patients. Management of this condition is an evolving field with multiple options for surgical treatment. We sought to review the pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative considerations, post-operative care, and future directions for treatment of male SUI.

Methods

A literature review was performed using the PubMed platform to identify peer-reviewed, English-language articles published within the last 5 years pertaining to management of male stress urinary incontinence with an emphasis on devices currently on the market in the United States including the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), male urethral slings, and the ProACT^TM system. Patient selection criteria, success rates, and complications were compared between the studies.

Results

Twenty articles were included in the final contemporary review. Pre-operative workup most commonly included demonstration of incontinence, PPD, and cystoscopy. Definition of success varied by study; the most common definition used was social continence (0-1 pads per day). Reported rates of success were higher for the AUS than for male urethral slings (73-93% vs 70-90%, respectively). Complications for these procedures include urinary retention, erosions, infections, and device malfunction. Newer treatment options including adjustable balloon systems and adjustable slings show promise but lack long-term follow-up.

Conclusion

Patient selection remains the primary consideration for surgical decision-making for management of male SUI. The AUS continues to be the gold standard for moderate-to-severe male SUI but comes with inherent risk of need for revision. Male slings may be a superior option for appropriately selected men with mild incontinence but are inferior to the AUS for moderate and severe incontinence. Ongoing research will shed light on long-term results for newer options such as the ProACT and REMEEX systems.

Current Surgical Treatment for Neurogenic Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction in Patients with Chronic Spinal Cord Injury

This study aimed to present a comprehensive literature review of the efforts of a spinal cord injury workgroup in Taiwan regarding urologic surgery for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) in patients with chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). Surgical procedures should be viewed as a final option for managing patients with SCI who have persistent symptoms and complications that cannot be resolved by other means. Surgeries can be grouped according to their purpose: reducing bladder pressures, reducing urethra resistance, increasing urethra resistance, and urinary diversion. The choice of surgery depends on the type of LUTD based on urodynamic tests. Additionally, cognitive function, hand motility, comorbidities, efficacy of surgery, and related complications should be considered.