Introduction: After implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) due to stress urinary incontinence, in some cases revision procedures may be necessary. This is mostly due to device infection or cuff erosion in the long term. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of early revision procedures (prior to or immediately after AUS activation) on the long-term outcome. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent primary AUS implantation between 2006 and 2019. Patients with previous radiotherapy, urethroplasty, urethral stent placement, or repeat AUS implantation were excluded. Early revision was defined as prior to or immediately after AUS activation and comprised pump repositioning or cuff size adaptation due to difficulties in using the pump, persistent urinary incontinence, or urinary retention. Patients were compared with regard to complication rates, functional outcome, and patient satisfaction. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyze risk factors for early AUS revision. Kaplan-Meier analysis evaluated explantation-free survival. Results: A total of 250 patients were included. Twenty patients (8%) required early revision (pump repositioning in 15 cases [75%], cuff downsizing in 3 cases [15%], and cuff upsizing in 2 cases [10%]). Mean follow-up was 78.6 months. 96.4% of all patients were objectively continent at the time of last follow-up without differences between both groups, and patient satisfaction was high in both groups. No differences with regard to mechanical implant failure, tissue atrophy, and AUS explantation due to cuff erosion or implant infection were observed. Explantation-free survival was comparable in both groups. On univariable logistic regression analysis, coronary artery disease and transcorporal cuff placement were associated with early AUS revision. Conclusion: Early revision after AUS implantation can be performed without negative impact on the long-term outcome.

1.
Heesakkers
J
,
Farag
F
,
Bauer
RM
,
Sandhu
J
,
De Ridder
D
,
Stenzl
A
.
Pathophysiology and contributing factors in postprostatectomy incontinence: a review
.
Eur Urol
.
2017 Jun
;
71
(
6
):
936
44
. .
2.
Liss
MA
,
Lusch
A
,
Morales
B
,
Beheshti
N
,
Skarecky
D
,
Narula
N
,
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: 5-year oncological and biochemical outcomes
.
J Urol
.
2012
;
188
:
2205
10
. .
3.
Dell'Oglio
P
,
Mottrie
A
,
Mazzone
E
.
Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy versus open radical prostatectomy: latest evidences on perioperative, functional and oncological outcomes
.
Curr Opin Urol
.
2020
;
30
(
1
):
73
8
.
4.
Ficarra
V
,
Novara
G
,
Rosen
RC
,
Artibani
W
,
Carroll
PR
,
Costello
A
,
Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting urinary continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy
.
Eur Urol
.
2012 Sep
;
62
(
3
):
405
17
. .
5.
Radadia
KD
,
Farber
NJ
,
Shinder
B
,
Polotti
CF
,
Milas
LJ
,
Tunuguntla
HSGR
.
Management of postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review
.
Urology
.
2018 Mar
;
113
:
13
9
. .
6.
Chen
YC
,
Lin
PH
,
Jou
YY
,
Lin
VC
.
Surgical treatment for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: a meta-analysis and systematic review
.
PLoS One
.
2017 May 3
;
12
(
5
):
e0130867
. .
7.
Suarez
OA
,
McCammon
KA
.
The artificial urinary sphincter in the management of incontinence
.
Urology
.
2016 Jun
;
92
:
14
9
. .
8.
Radomski
SB
,
Ruzhynsky
V
,
Wallis
CJD
,
Herschorn
S
.
Complications and Interventions in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter: long-term results
.
J Urol
.
2018 Nov
;
200
(
5
):
1093
8
. .
9.
James
MH
,
McCammon
KA
.
Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a review
.
Int J Urol
.
2014 Jun
;
21
(
6
):
536
43
. .
10.
Biardeau
X
,
Aharony
S
;
AUS Consensus Group
;
Campeau
L
,
Corcos
J
.
Artificial urinary sphincter: report of the 2015 consensus conference
.
Neurourol Urodyn
.
2016 Apr
;
35
(
Suppl 2
):
S8
24
.
11.
Fuller
TW
,
Ballon-Landa
E
,
Gallo
K
,
Smith
TG
 3rd
,
Ajay
D
,
Westney
OL
,
Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and nonradiated cases
.
J Urol
.
2020 Jul
;
204
(
1
):
110
4
. .
12.
Lai
HH
,
Boone
TB
.
Complex artificial urinary sphincter revision and reimplantation cases: how do they fare compared to virgin cases?
J Urol
.
2012 Mar
;
187
(
3
):
951
5
. .
13.
Linder
BJ
,
de Cogain
M
,
Elliott
DS
.
Long-term device outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation following prior explantation for erosion or infection
.
J Urol
.
2014 Mar
;
191
(
3
):
734
8
. .
14.
Sayedahmed
K
,
Olianas
R
,
Kaftan
B
,
Omar
M
,
El Shazly
M
,
Burger
M
,
Impact of previous urethroplasty on the outcome after artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a prospective evaluation
.
World J Urol
.
2020 Jan
;
38
(
1
):
183
91
. .
15.
Andersen
JT
,
Blaivas
JG
,
Cardozo
L
,
Thuroff
J
.
Seventh report on the standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: lower urinary tract rehabilitation techniques
.
Scand J Urol Nephrol
.
1992
;
26
(
2
):
99
106
.
16.
Linder
BJ
,
Piotrowski
JT
,
Ziegelmann
MJ
,
Rivera
ME
,
Rangel
LJ
,
Elliott
DS
.
Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement
.
J Urol
.
2015 Sep
;
194
(
3
):
716
20
. .
17.
Linder
BJ
,
Rivera
ME
,
Ziegelmann
MJ
,
Elliott
DS
.
Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1,082 cases at Mayo Clinic
.
Urology
.
2015 Sep
;
86
(
3
):
602
7
. .
18.
Heah
NH
,
Tan
RBW
.
Management of urethral atrophy after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter: what are the weaknesses?
Asian J Androl
.
2020 Jan–Feb
;
22
(
1
):
60
3
. .
19.
Saffarian
A
,
Walsh
K
,
Walsh
IK
,
Stone
AR
.
Urethral atrophy after artificial urinary sphincter placement: is cuff downsizing effective?
J Urol
.
2003 Feb
;
169
(
2
):
567
9
. .
20.
Brant
WO
,
Erickson
BA
,
Elliott
SP
,
Powell
C
,
Alsikafi
N
,
McClung
C
,
Risk factors for erosion of artificial urinary sphincters: a multicenter prospective study
.
Urology
.
2014 Oct
;
84
(
4
):
934
8
. .
21.
Eswara
JR
,
Chan
R
,
Vetter
JM
,
Lai
HH
,
Boone
TB
,
Brandes
SB
.
Revision techniques after artificial urinary sphincter failure in men: results from a multicenter study
.
Urology
.
2015 Jul
;
86
(
1
):
176
80
. .
22.
Raj
GV
,
Peterson
AC
,
Webster
GD
.
Outcomes following erosions of the artificial urinary sphincter
.
J Urol
.
2006 Jun
;
175
(
6
):
2186
90
. .
23.
Hoy
NY
,
Rourke
KF
.
Artificial urinary sphincter outcomes in the “fragile urethra”
.
Urology
.
2015 Sep
;
86
(
3
):
618
24
. .
24.
Redmond
E
,
Tong
S
,
Zemp
L
,
Hoy
N
,
Rourke
KF
.
Improved artificial urinary sphincter outcomes using a transcorporal cuff placement in patients with a “fragile urethra”
.
Can Urol Assoc J
.
2020 Dec
;
14
(
12
):
E621
4
. .
25.
Wiedemann
L
,
Cornu
JN
,
Haab
E
,
Peyrat
L
,
Beley
S
,
Cathelineau
X
,
Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter implantation as a salvage surgical procedure for challenging cases of male stress urinary incontinence: surgical technique and functional outcomes in a contemporary series
.
BJU Int
.
2013 Dec
;
112
(
8
):
1163
8
. .
26.
Le Long
E
,
Rebibo
JD
,
Nouhaud
FX
,
Grise
P
.
Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter in radiated and non radiated compromised urethra. Assessment with a minimum 2 year follow-up
.
Int Braz J Urol
.
2016 May–Jun
;
42
(
3
):
494
500
. .
27.
Smith
PJ
,
Hudak
SJ
,
Scott
JF
,
Zhao
LC
,
Morey
AF
.
Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement is associated with a higher risk of postoperative urinary retention
.
Can J Urol
.
2013 Jun
;
20
(
3
):
6773
7
..
28.
Van der Aa
F
,
Drake
MJ
,
Kasyan
GR
,
Petrolekas
A
,
Cornu
JN
.
Young academic urologists functional urology group. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence
.
Eur Urol
.
2013 Apr
;
63
(
4
):
681
9
.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.