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.
Humans ; Male ; Prostatectomy ; Suburethral Slings ; Urinary Incontinence ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation and to report the complication rates, including mechanical failure, erosion, and infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June 1990 to May 2011, AUS (AMS 800) implantations were performed in 56 adult males by one surgeon. Various demographic and preoperative variables, surgical variables, and postoperative outcomes, including success and complication rates with a median follow-up of 96 months, were recorded retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients at the time of AUS implantation was 61.8 (+/-14.2) years. During the follow-up period, the total complication rate was 41.1% (23 patients). The incidence of complications was significantly lower during the follow-up period after 48 months (p<0.05). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that 5- and 10-year failure-free rates were 50.3% and 45.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term durability and functional outcomes are achievable for the AMS 800, but there are appreciable complication rates for erosion, mechanical failure, and infection of up to 30%.
Adult ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Incidence ; Kaplan-Meier Estimate ; Male ; Urinary Incontinence ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (UI) after prostate surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 19 patients who underwent AUS implantation from July 2003 to November 2008. Efficacy was evaluated in terms of the postoperative changes in daily pad use, incontinence visual analogue scale (I-VAS), International Continence Society male-Short Form questionnaire (ICS-male SF), Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire (I-QoL), and patients' satisfaction postoperatively. No pad use was defined as cure, and use of 1 pad or fewer per day as improvement. Cure and improvement were regarded as success. Complications and durability of the AUS were evaluated. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 70.0 years (range, 47-76 years). With a median follow-up period of 11.8 months (range, 6.2-48.1 months), the success rate was 68.4% (13/19; cure in 12 and improvement in 1). I-VAS, subscale scores of ICS-male SF (incontinence and QoL), and total and subscale scores of I-QoL (psychosocial impact, social embarrassment, avoidance, and limiting behaviors) were significantly improved. Fifteen (78.9%) patients reported being satisfied. Six (31.5%) patients required revision: volume adjustment for 2, second cuff implantation for 2, pump reposition for 1, and pump reposition, volume adjustment, and second cuff implantation for 1. One of the patients who had a second cuff implantation had the sphincter explanted for infection. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high rate of revision, the satisfaction rate was high and the quality of life was significantly improved after AUS implantation for urinary incontinence after prostate surgery.
Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Prostate ; Quality of Life ; Retrospective Studies ; Social Change ; Urinary Incontinence ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial

Urge urinary incontinence (UUI) is one of the most troublesome complications of surgery of the prostate whether for malignancy or benign conditions. For many decades, there have been attempts to reduce the morbidity of this outcome with variable results. Since its development in the 1970s, the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has been the "gold standard" for treatment of the most severe cases of UUI. Other attempts including injectable bulking agents, previous sphincter designs, and slings have been developed, but largely abandoned because of poor long-term efficacy and significant complications. The AUS has had several sentinel redesigns since its first introduction to reduce erosion and infection and increase efficacy. None of these changes in the basic AUS design have occurred in the past three decades, and the AUS remains the same despite newer technology and materials that could improve its function and safety. Recently, newer compressive devices and slings to reposition the bladder neck for men with mild-to-moderate UUI have been developed with success in select patients. Similarly, the AUS has had applied antibiotic coating to all portions except the pressure-regulating balloon (PRB) to reduce infection risk. The basic AUS design, however, has not changed. With newer electronic technology, the concept of the electronic AUS or eAUS has been proposed and several possible iterations of this eAUS have been reported. While the eAUS is as yet not available, its development continues and a prototype device may be available soon. Possible design options are discussed in this review.
Humans ; Prostatectomy/adverse effects* ; Prosthesis Design ; Urinary Incontinence, Urge/surgery* ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial

PURPOSE: The efficacy of the artificial urinary sphincter(AUS) in treating sphincteric incontinence has been clearly demonstrated. We report on 20 years of experience using artificial sphincter implantation at a single institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The follow-up data for 37 patients who received AUS(AMS 800(TM)) implantation between 1987 and 2006 at Yonsei University were available for this study. We investigated various components of the medical records, such as the number of pads used per day, results of pre-operative urodynamic studies, operative and post-operative complications, and revision rate. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 35.6 years(range 15-64 years), and mean follow-up duration was 12.4 years(range 1.4-19.8 years). Of the 37 patients, 21 had neurogenic bladder, and 9 had traumatic injury. Other causes of incontinence included post-operative complications(4 patients) and congenital anomalies(3 patients). The cuffs were placed were in the bladder necks of 21 patients and in the bulbous urethrae of 16 patients. The average number of pads used daily decreased significantly from 6.2 to 1.2 after the operation, and 27 patients(72.9%) were able to maintain 'dry-up status' (number of pads used< or=1). A total of 32 artificial sphincters remained in place(86.4% survival rate), with 8 revisions(21.6%) required secondary to infection, mechanical failure, or urethral stone. CONCLUSIONS: AUS implantation is a safe and durable treatment for urinary incontinence in patients with intrinsic sphincter deficiency from various underlying diseases.
Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Medical Records ; Neck ; Urethra ; Urinary Bladder ; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic ; Urinary Incontinence ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial ; Urodynamics

PURPOSE: The aim was to study the correlation between cuff size and outcome after implantation of an AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter. METHODS: A total of 473 male patients with an AMS 800 sphincter implanted between 2012 and 2014 were analyzed in a retrospective multicenter cohort study performed as part of the Central European Debates on Male Incontinence (DOMINO) Project. RESULTS: Single cuffs were implanted in 54.5% and double cuffs in 45.5% of the patients. The cuffs used had a median circumference of 4.5 cm. Within a median follow of 18 months, urethral erosion occurred in 12.8% of the cases and was associated significantly more often with small cuff sizes (P<0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that, apart from cuff size (P=0.03), prior irradiation (P<0.001) and the penoscrotal approach (P=0.036) were associated with an increased erosion rate. Continence rate tended to be highest with median cuff sizes (4–5.5 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Apart from irradiation and the penoscrotal approach, small cuff size is a risk factor for urethral erosion. Results are best with cuff sizes of 4.5–5.5 cm.
Cohort Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Multivariate Analysis ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial

PURPOSE: To analyze perioperative complications and postoperative explantation rates for selected readjustable male sling systems and the perineal single-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort. METHODS: Two hundred eighty-two male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in the study (n=127 adjustable male sling [n=95 Argus classic, n=32 Argus T], n=155 AUS). Perioperative characteristics and postoperative complications were analyzed. The explantation rates of the respective devices were assessed using the Fisher exact test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. A Kaplan-Meier curve was generated. Potential features associated with device explantation were analyzed using a multiple logistic regression model (P<0.05). RESULTS: We found significantly increased intraoperative complication rates after adjustable male sling implantation (15.9% [adjustable male sling] vs. 4.2% [AUS], P=0.003). The most frequent intraoperative complication was bladder perforation (n=17). Postoperative infection rates did not vary significantly between the respective devices (P=0.378). Device explantation rates were significantly higher after AUS implantation (9.7% [adjustable male sling] vs. 21.5% [AUS], P=0.030). In multivariate analysis, postoperative infection was a strong independent predictor of decreased device survival (odds ratio, 6.556; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complication profiles vary between adjustable male slings and AUS. Explantation rates are lower after adjustable male sling implantation. Any kind of postoperative infections are independent predictors of decreased device survival. There is no significant effect of the experience of the implanting institution on device survival.
Cohort Studies ; Humans ; Intraoperative Complications ; Logistic Models ; Male* ; Multivariate Analysis ; Postoperative Complications ; Suburethral Slings* ; Urinary Bladder ; Urinary Incontinence* ; Urinary Incontinence, Stress ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial*

One of the annoying complications of radical prostatectomy is urinary incontinence. Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) causes a significant impact on the patient's health-related quality of life. Although PPI is stress urinary incontinence caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency in most cases, bladder dysfunction and vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis can induce urine leakage also. Exact clinical assessments, such as a voiding diary, incontinence questionnaire, pad test, urodynamic study, and urethrocystoscopy, are necessary to determine adequate treatment. The initial management of PPI is conservative treatment including lifestyle interventions, pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, and bladder training. An early start of conservative treatment is recommended during the first year. If the conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment is recommended. Surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy can be divided into minimally invasive and invasive treatments. Minimally invasive treatment includes injection of urethral bulking agents, male suburethral sling, and adjustable continence balloons. Invasive treatment includes artificial urinary sphincter implantation, which is still the gold standard and the most effective treatment of PPI. However, the demand for minimally invasive treatment is increasing, and many urologists consider male suburethral slings to be an acceptable treatment for PPI. The male sling is usually recommended for patients with persistent mild or moderate incontinence. It is necessary to improve our understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms of PPI and to compare different procedures for the development of new and potentially better treatment options.
Biofeedback, Psychology ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Humans ; Life Style ; Male ; Muscles ; Pelvic Floor ; Postoperative Complications ; Prostatectomy ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; Quality of Life ; Suburethral Slings ; Urinary Bladder ; Urinary Incontinence ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial ; Urodynamics

Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can undoubtedly reduce quality of life and promote personal distress and psychosocial alienation. The frequency of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) counts on the characterization of urinary incontinence and the periods of patient follow-up. Operational therapeutics, for instance, urethral male slings and artificial urinary sphincters, are well-chosen as adequate and secure surgeries for male SUI in men with continual PPI when conservative treatment is ineffective. Over the former 2 decades, surgery has progressed regarding both operative approach and sling architecture. However, there are no guidelines about when surgery should be carried out and which is the most appropriate surgical option. In this review, we summarize recent advances in implantable devices for PPI and also discuss traditional surgical care. When we are planning the male PPI surgery, careful preoperative work-up should be performed and surgical method should be chosen according to the severity of the disease. Male sling is preferred in mild and moderate symptomatic patients with normal detrusor pressure and it is recommended to select traditional artificial urinary sphincter device in those with severe symptoms. It is expected that effective devices without adverse events will be developed with technical advances in near future.
Emigrants and Immigrants ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Methods ; Prostatectomy ; Quality of Life ; Suburethral Slings ; Urinary Incontinence ; Urinary Incontinence, Stress ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the standard of care in men with severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following prostate surgery and radiation. While the current AUS provides an effective, safe, and durable treatment option, it is not without its limitations and complications, especially with regard to its utility in some "high-risk" populations. This article provides a critical review of relevant publications pertaining to AUS surgery in specific high-risk groups such as men with spinal cord injury, revision cases, concurrent penile prosthesis implant, and female SUI. The discussion of each category includes a brief review of surgical challenge and a practical action-based set of recommendations. Our increased understandings of the pathophysiology of various SUI cases coupled with effective therapeutic strategies to enhance AUS surgery continue to improve clinical outcomes of many patients with SUI.
Erectile Dysfunction/surgery* ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Penile Implantation ; Prosthesis Implantation/methods* ; Reoperation ; Spinal Cord Injuries/complications* ; Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic/surgery* ; Urinary Incontinence, Stress/surgery* ; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial