Changing Trends in Management Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Surgery for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: An Analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

Published:October 16, 2020DOI:


      To characterize the safety and practice patterns of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement on a population level. Increasingly AUS implantation has shifted to be an outpatient surgery; however, there is a lack of large-scale research evaluating factors associated with early (≤ 24 hours) versus late (>24 hours) discharges and complications in men following AUS placement. We utilized the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database to identify and compare factors and outcomes associated with each approach.


      NSQIP database was queried for men undergoing AUS placement between 2007 and 2016. Patients were classified as either early discharge (ED ≤ 24 hours) and late discharge (LD > 24 hours). Baseline demographics, operating time, and complications were compared between the 2 groups. Multivariate logistic regression evaluated factors associated with discharge timing and 30-day complications.


      A total of 1176 patients were identified and were classified as ED in 232 and LD in 944 patients. Operative time was shorter in ED (83 minutes) compared to LD (95 minutes, P < .001). Hypertension was more prevalent among LD patients (60.3% vs 69.1% for ED and LD respectively, P < .001). The 30-day complication rate was similar in both groups (ED: 4.3% vs LD: 3.4%, P = .498). Multivariable analysis revealed that surgery after 2012 was associated with ED (OR = 3.66, P < .001).


      At the national level, there are no differences in postoperative morbidity between early and late discharges. There is a trend toward more ED, specifically after 2012. A prospective study on the feasibility and safety of outpatient AUS is needed.
      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 to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Yafi FA
        • Powers MK
        • Zurawin J
        • et al.
        Contemporary review of artificial urinary sphincters for male stress urinary incontinence.
        Sex Med Rev. 2016; 4: 157-166
        • Alwaal A
        • Harris CR
        • Awad MA
        • et al.
        Comparison of complication rates related to male urethral slings and artificial urinary sphincters for urinary incontinence: national multi-institutional analysis of ACS-NSQIP database.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2016; 48: 1571-1576
        • Cullen KA
        • Hall MJ
        • Golosinskiy A
        Ambulatory surgery in the United States, 2006.
        Natl Health Stat Report. 2009; 28: 1-25
        • Peterson AC
        • Webster GD
        Artificial urinary sphincter: lessons learned.
        Urol Clin North Am. 2011; 38 (vii): 83-88
        • Biardeau X AS
        • Campeau L
        • Corcos J
        • AUS Consensus Group
        Artificial urinary sphincter: report of the 2015 consensus conference.
        Neurouol Urodyn. 2016; 35: S8-S24
        • Kaiho Y
        • Masuda H
        • Takei M
        • et al.
        Surgical and patient reported outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a multicenter, prospective, observational study.
        J Urol. 2018; 199: 245-250
        • Linder BJ
        • Piotrowski JT
        • Ziegelmann MJ
        • et al.
        Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement.
        J Urol. 2015; 194: 716-720
        • Smith PJ
        • Hudak SJ
        • Scott JF
        • et al.
        Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement is associated with a higher risk of postoperative urinary retention.
        Can J Urol. 2013; 20: 6773-6777
        • Suarez OA
        • McCammon KA
        The artificial urinary sphincter in the management of incontinence.
        Urology. 2016; 92: 14-19
      1. Wolf JS, Bennett CJ, Dmochowski RR, Hollenbeck BK, Pearle MS, Schaeffer AJ. AUA antimicrobial prophylaxis: best practice statement 2008 [updated 2012; cited 2020 May 3, 2020].

        • Raj GV
        • Peterson AC
        • Webster GD
        Outcomes following erosions of the artificial urinary sphincter.
        J Urol. 2006; 175 (discussion 2190): 2186-2190
        • Magera Jr., JS
        • Elliott DS
        Artificial urinary sphincter infection: causative organisms in a contemporary series.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 2475-2478
        • Kim SP
        • Sarmast Z
        • Daignault S
        • et al.
        Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan.
        J Urol. 2008; 179: 1912-1916
        • Khalil MI
        • Bhandari NR
        • McKay S
        • et al.
        Evaluation of factors and short-term postoperative morbidity associated with early versus late discharge following urethroplasty.
        Int Urol Nephrol. 2020; 52: 1279-1286
        • Hollingsworth JM
        • Saigal CS
        • Lai JC
        • et al.
        Medicare payments for outpatient urological surgery by location of care.
        J Urol. 2012; 188: 2323-2327
        • Kominski GF
        • Nonzee NJ
        • Sorensen A
        The affordable care act's impacts on access to insurance and health care for low-income populations.
        Annu Rev Public Health. 2017; 38: 489-505
        • Pederzoli F
        • Chappidi MR
        • Collica S
        • et al.
        Analysis of hospital readmissions after prosthetic urologic surgery in the United States: nationally representative estimates of causes, costs, and predictive factors.
        J Sex Med. 2017; 14: 1059-1065
        • Lee DJ
        • Najari BB
        • Davison WL
        • et al.
        Trends in the utilization of penile prostheses in the treatment of erectile dysfunction in the United States.
        J Sex Med. 2015; 12: 1638-1645
        • Ghanem HM
        • Fahmy I
        • Fallon B
        Infection control in outpatient unicomponent penile prosthesis surgery.
        Int J Impot Res. 1999; 11: 25-27
        • Garber BB
        Outpatient inflatable penile prosthesis insertion.
        Urology. 1997; 49: 600-603
        • Abdul-Muhsin H
        • Critchlow W
        • Navaratnam A
        • et al.
        Feasibility of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate as a 1-day surgery.
        World J Urol. 2020; 38: 1017-1025
        • Aho TF
        • Gilling PJ
        • Kennett KM
        • et al.
        Holmium laser bladder neck incision versus holmium enucleation of the prostate as outpatient procedures for prostates less than 40 grams: a randomized trial.
        J Urol. 2005; 174: 210-214
        • Banapour P
        • Elliott P
        • Jabaji R
        • et al.
        Safety and feasibility of outpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.
        J Robot Surg. 2019; 13: 261-265
        • Khalil MI
        • Bhandari NR
        • Payakachat N
        • et al.
        Perioperative mortality and morbidity of outpatient versus inpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a propensity matched analysis.
        Urol Oncol. 2020; 38 (3 e1-3 e6)
        • Ha YS
        • Yoo ES.
        Artificial urinary sphincter for postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence - is it the best option?.
        Int Neurourol J. 2019; 23: 265-276
        • Scott FB
        • Bradley WE
        • Timm GW
        Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter.
        Urology. 1973; 1: 252-259
        • Adamsky MA
        • Boysen WR
        • Cohen AJ
        • et al.
        Evaluating the role of postoperative oral antibiotic administration in artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis explantation: a nationwide analysis.
        Urology. 2018; 111: 92-98