Background/Aims/Objectives: To analyze perioperative complication and short-term explantation rates after perineal or penoscrotal single-cuff and double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in a large middle European multi-institutional patient cohort. Methods: 467 male patients with stress urinary incontinence underwent implantation of a perineal single-cuff (n = 152), penoscrotal single-cuff (n = 99), or perineal double-cuff (n = 216) AUS between 2010 and 2012. Postoperative complications and 6-month explantation rates were assessed. For statistical analysis, Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test, and a multiple logistic regression model were used (p < 0.05). Results: Compared to perineal single-cuff AUS, penoscrotal single-cuff implantation led to significantly increased short-term explantation rates (8.6% (perineal) vs. 19.2% (penoscrotal), p = 0.019). The postoperative infection rate was significantly higher after double-cuff compared to single-cuff implantation (6.0% (single-cuff) vs. 13.9% (double-cuff), p = 0.019). The short-term explantation rate after primary double-cuff placement was 6.5% (p = 0.543 vs. perineal single-cuff). In multivariate analysis, the penoscrotal approach (p = 0.004), intraoperative complications (p = 0.005), postoperative bleeding (p = 0.011), and perioperative infection (p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for short-term explantation. Conclusions: Providing data from a large contemporary multi-institutional patient cohort from high-volume and low-volume institutions, our results reflect the current standard of care in middle Europe. We indicate that the penoscrotal approach is an independent risk factor for increased short-term explantation rates.

Keywords:
Male stress urinary incontinence, Artificial urinary sphincter, Complications, Safety
1.
Geiger-Gritsch S, Oberaigner W, Muhlberger N, Siebert U, Ladurner M, Klocker H, et al: Patient-reported urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy: results from the European prostate centre innsbruck. Urol Int 2015;94:419-427.
2.
Fernandez RA, Garcia-Hermoso A, Solera-Martinez M, Correa MT, Morales AF, Martinez-Vizcaino V: Improvement of continence rate with pelvic floor muscle training post-prostatectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Urol Int 2015;94:125-132.
3.
Lucas MG, Bosch RJ, Burkhard FC, Cruz F, Madden TB, Nambiar AK, et al: EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 2012;62:1118-1129.
4.
Herschorn S: The artificial urinary sphincter is the treatment of choice for post-radical prostatectomy incontinence. Can Urol Assoc J 2008;2:536-539.
5.
Knight SL, Susser J, Greenwell T, Mundy AR, Craggs MD: A new artificial urinary sphincter with conditional occlusion for stress urinary incontinence: preliminary clinical results. Eur Urol 2006;50:574-580.
6.
Alonso Rodriguez D Fes Ascanic E, Fernandez Barranco L, Vicens Vicens A Garcia Montes F: One hundred flowSecure artificial urinary sphincters. Eur Urol Suppl 2011;10:309.
7.
Kretschmer A, Husch T, Thomsen F, Kronlachner D, Pottek T, Obaje A, et al: Efficacy and safety of the ZSI375 artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence: lessons learned. World J Urol 2016, Epub ahead of print.
8.
Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN: 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;63:681-689.
9.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA: Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6,336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 2004;240:205-213.
10.
Wilson S, Delk J 2nd, Henry GD, Siegel AL: New surgical technique for sphincter urinary control system using upper transverse scrotal incision. J Urol 2003;169:261-264.
11.
Henry GD, Graham SM, Cleves MA, Simmons CJ, Flynn B: Perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation appears to control male stress incontinence better than the transscrotal approach. J Urol 2008;179:1475-1479.
12.
Henry GD, Graham SM, Cornell RJ, Cleves MA, Simmons CJ, Vakalopoulos I, et al: A multicenter study on the perineal versus penoscrotal approach for implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: cuff size and control of male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 2009;182:2404-2409.
13.
Kretschmer A, Buchner A, Grabbert M, Stief CG, Pavlicek M, Bauer RM: Risk factors for artificial urinary sphincter failure. World J Urol 2016;34:595-602.
14.
O'Connor RC, Lyon MB, Guralnick ML, Bales GT: Long-term follow-up of single versus double cuff artificial urinary sphincter insertion for the treatment of severe postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2008;71:90-93.
15.
Linder BJ, Piotrowski JT, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS: Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement. J Urol 2015;194:716-720.
16.
Suarez OA, McCammon KA: The artificial urinary sphincter in the management of incontinence. Urology 2016;92:14-19.
17.
Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS: Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at mayo clinic. Urology 2015;86:602-607.
18.
Walsh IK, Williams SG, Mahendra V, Nambirajan T, Stone AR: Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient: safety, efficacy and satisfaction. BJU Int 2002;89:364-368.
19.
Simhan J, Morey AF, Singla N, Tausch TJ, Scott JF, Lemack GE, et al: 3.5 cm Artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion occurs predominantly in irradiated patients. J Urol 2014;193:593-597.
20.
Sandhu JS, Maschino AC, Vickers AJ: The surgical learning curve for artificial urinary sphincter procedures compared to typical surgeon experience. Eur Urol 2011;60:1285-1290.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
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.