Advertisement

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outperforms Sling for Moderate Male Stress Urinary Incontinence

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To determine the role of slings and artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) in the management of mild and moderate stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

      Methods

      A retrospective review of our single-surgeon male SUI database was completed. Men having AUS or AdVance sling procedures between 2008 and 2019 were included in the analysis. Those with severe incontinence and/or incomplete pre- or postoperative data were excluded. All patients were evaluated by standing cough test and stratified according to the Male Stress Incontinence Grading Scale. Scores of 0-1 and 2-3 defined mild and moderate SUI, respectively. We performed 2 analyses: (a) sling outcomes were compared between mild vs moderate SUI patients, and (b) for men with moderate SUI, we compared outcomes between slings and AUS. Treatment failure was defined as >1 pad per day or need for subsequent incontinence procedure.

      Results

      Among 202 sling cases, those with mild SUI had significantly higher success rate (69/88, 78%) than those with moderate SUI (72/114, 63%; P = .02). Among the 179 men with moderate SUI, those who underwent AUS had significantly higher success rate (52/65, 80%) than those who underwent sling (72/114, 63%; P = .02).

      Conclusion

      Male slings are more effective for men with mild SUI than for men with moderate SUI. Men with moderate SUI have a higher success rate with AUS than with sling.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Scott FB
        • Bradley WE
        • Timm GW
        Treatment of urinary incontinence by an implantable prosthetic urinary sphincter.
        J Urol. 1974; 112: 75-80https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59647-0
        • Tutolo M
        • Cornu J-N
        • Bauer RM
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38: 710-718https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23901
        • Fischer MC
        • Huckabay C
        • Nitti VW
        The male perineal sling: assessment and prediction of outcome.
        J Urol. 2007; 177: 1414-1418https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.11.061
        • Chua ME
        • Zuckerman J
        • Mason JB
        • et al.
        Long-term success durability of transobturator male sling.
        Urology. 2019; 133: 222-228https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.032
        • Sandhu JS
        • Breyer B
        • Comiter C
        • et al.
        Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline.
        J Urol. 2019; 202: 369-378https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000314
        • Grabbert M
        • Mumm J-N
        • Klehr B
        • et al.
        Extended follow-up of the AdVance XP male sling in the treatment of male urinary stress incontinence after 48 months: results of a prospective and multicenter study.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38: 1973-1978https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24101
        • Ye H
        • Haab F
        • de Ridder D
        • et al.
        Effectiveness and complications of the AMS AdVanceTM male sling system for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a prospective multicenter study.
        Urology. 2018; 120: 197-204https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.06.035
        • Collado A
        • Domínguez-Escrig J
        • Ortiz Rodríguez IM
        • Ramirez-Backhaus M
        • Rodríguez Torreblanca C
        • Rubio-Briones J
        Functional follow-up after Advance® and Advance XP® male sling surgery: assessment of predictive factors.
        World J Urol. 2019; 37: 195-200https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2357-9
        • Ferro M
        • Bottero D
        • D'Elia C
        • et al.
        Virtue male sling for post-prostatectomy stress incontinence: a prospective evaluation and mid-term outcomes.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 482-488https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13672
        • Kretschmer A
        • Nitti V
        Surgical treatment of male postprostatectomy incontinence: current concepts.
        Eur Urol Focus. 2017; 3: 364-376https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.11.007
        • Lucas MG
        • Bosch RJL
        • Burkhard FC
        • et al.
        EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence.
        Actas Urol Esp. 2013; 37: 459-472https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2013.02.002
        • Shakir NA
        • Fuchs JS
        • McKibben MJ
        • et al.
        Refined nomogram incorporating standing cough test improves prediction of male transobturator sling success.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2018; 37: 2632-2637https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23703
        • Bauer RM
        • Gozzi C
        • Klehr B
        • et al.
        AdVanceXP male sling: 2-year results of a multicentre study.
        World J Urol. 2016; 34: 1025-1030https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1731-0
        • Bauer RM
        • Grabbert MT
        • Klehr B
        • et al.
        36-month data for the AdVance XP® male sling: results of a prospective multicentre study.
        BJU Int. 2017; 119: 626-630https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13704
        • Morey AF
        • Singla N
        • Carmel M
        • et al.
        Standing cough test for evaluation of post-prostatectomy incontinence: a pilot study.
        Can J Urol. 2017; 24: 8664-8669
        • Viers B
        • VanDyke M
        • Pagliara T
        • Al E
        Improving male sling selectivity and outcomes-a potential role for physical demonstration of stress urinary incontinence severity?.
        Urol Pract. 2017; 5: 458-465
        • Soljanik I
        • Gozzi C
        • Becker AJ
        • Stief CG
        • Bauer RM
        Risk factors of treatment failure after retrourethral transobturator male sling.
        World J Urol. 2012; 30: 201-206https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0671-6
        • Fuchs JS
        • Shakir N
        • McKibben MJ
        • Scott JM
        • Morey AF
        Prolonged duration of incontinence of men before initial anti-incontinence surgery: an opportunity for improvement.
        Urology. 2018; 119: 149-154
        • Krhut J
        • Zachoval R
        • Smith PP
        • et al.
        Pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence.
        Nuerourol Urodyn. 2014; 33: 507-510
        • Yi YA
        • Keith CG
        • Graziano CE
        • et al.
        Strong correlation between standing cough test and 24-hour pad weights in the evaluation of male stress urinary incontinence.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2020; 39: 319-323https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24200
        • Soljanik I
        • Gozzi C
        • Becker AJ
        • Stief CG
        • Bauer RM
        Risk factors of treatment failure after retrourethral transobturator male sling.
        World J Urol. 2012; 30: 201-206
        • Twiss C
        • Fleischmann N
        • Nitti VW
        Correlation of abdominal leak point pressure with objective incontinence severity in men with post-radical prostatectomy stress incontinence.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2005; 24: 207-210
        • Hoffman D
        • Vijay V
        • Peng M
        • et al.
        Effect of radiation on male stress urinary incontinence and the role of urodynamic assessment.
        Urology. 2019; 125: 58-63