Results of Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System in Patients with Prostate Cancer Treated with Prostatectomy and Radiotherapy: A Multicenter Study

Late erosion of an Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS®) device

Introduction

This report describes late erosion of an Adjustable Transobturator Male System device which was inserted for post-prostatectomy incontinence. The Adjustable Transobturator Male System device eroded the bulbar urethra 5 years post insertion, despite initial improvement of symptoms.

Case presentation

Following an open radical retropubic prostatectomy, a 64 year-old male patient developed post-prostatectomy incontinence. He had a known urethral stricture and had also undergone salvage radiotherapy for biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer. His incontinence was initially successfully treated with an Adjustable Transobturator Male System device, yet this eroded his bulbar urethra 5 years post insertion, which was deemed to be a late erosion.

Conclusion

Urologists should be aware that late erosion of the Adjustable Transobturator Male System device can occur, and risk stratification of patients undergoing Adjustable Transobturator Male System device insertion may help to minimize erosion rates.

The effectiveness of adjustable trans-obturator male system (ATOMS) in radiated patients is reduced: A propensity score-matched analysis

Objectives

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the adjustable trans-obturator male system (ATOMS®) to treat post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) in radiated patients compared with non-radiated patients, using propensity score-matching analysis to enhance the validity of the comparison.

Patients and methods

Consecutive men with PPI treated with silicone-covered scrotal port ATOMS (A.M.I., Feldkirch, Austria) in nine different institutions between 2016 and 2022 were included. Preoperative assessment evaluated 24-h pad usage, urethroscopy and urodynamics, if indicated. Propensity score-matching analysis was based on age, length of follow-up, previous PPI treatment, previous bladder neck stricture, androgen deprivation and pad usage. The primary endpoint was dry rate, defined as no pads post-operatively with a security pad allowed. The secondary endpoints were complications, device removal and self-perceived satisfaction with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale.

Results

Of the 710 included patients, 342 were matched, and the study groups were balanced for the baseline matched variables. The mean baseline 24-h pad was 4.8 in both groups (p = 0.48). The mean follow-up was 27.5 ± 18.6 months, which was also equivalent between groups (p = 0.36). The primary outcome was achieved in 73 (42.7%) radiated patients and in 115 (67.3%) non-radiated patients (p < 0.0001). The mean pad count at the last follow-up was 1.5 and 0.8, respectively (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in complications (p = 0.94), but surgical revision and device explant rates were higher (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively), and the proportion of patients highly satisfied (PGI-I = 1) was lower in the radiated group (p = 0.01). At sensitivity analysis, the study was found to be reasonably robust to hidden bias.

Conclusion

ATOMS implantation significantly outperformed in patients without adjuvant radiation over radiated patients.