Outcomes and Complication Rates of Cuff Downsizing in the Treatment of Worsening or Persistent Incontinence After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation
- Author:
Sylvia WEIS
1
;
Tim A. LUDWIG
;
Omar BAHASSAN
;
Philipp GILD
;
Malte W. VETTERLEIN
;
Margit FISCH
;
Roland DAHLEM
;
Valentin MAURER
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:International Neurourology Journal 2023;27(2):139-145
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Purpose:This study investigated the functional outcomes and complication rates of cuff downsizing for the treatment of recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in men after the implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS).
Methods:Data from our institutional AUS database spanning the period from 2009 to 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The number of pads per day was determined, a standardized quality of life (QoL) questionnaire and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) were administered, and postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification were analyzed.
Results:Out of 477 patients who received AUS implantation during the study period, 25 (5.2%) underwent cuff downsizing (median age, 77 years; interquartile range [IQR], 74–81 years; median follow-up, 4.4 years; IQR, 3–6.9 years). Before downsizing, SUI was very severe (ICIQ score 19–21) or severe (ICQ score 13–18) in 80% of patients, moderate (ICIQ score 6–12) in 12%, and slight (ICIQ score 1–5) in 8%. After downsizing, 52% showed an improvement of >5 out of 21 points. However, 28% still had very severe or severe SUI, 48% had moderate SUI, and 20% had slight SUI. One patient no longer had SUI. In 52% of patients, the use of pads per day was reduced by ≥50%. QoL improved by >2 out of 6 points in 56% of patients. Complications (infections/urethral erosions) requiring device explantation occurred in 36% of patients, with a median time to event of 14.5 months.
Conclusions:Although cuff downsizing carries a risk of AUS explantation, it can be a valuable treatment option for selected patients with persistent or recurrent SUI after AUS implantation. Over half of patients experienced improvements in symptoms, satisfaction, ICIQ scores, and pad use. It is important to inform patients about the potential risks and benefits of AUS to manage their expectations and assess individual risks.
