Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
We aimed to compare outcomes of open and robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in female patients.
Methods
The charts of all female patients who underwent an AUS implantation between 2008 and 2014 in a single center were retrospectively reviewed. From 2008 to 2012, AUS were implanted using an open approach and from 2013 to 2014 using a robot-assisted approach. Perioperative and functional parameters were compared between groups. The primary endpoint was continence status.
Results
Twenty-four women were assessed: 16 in the open group and eight in the robot-assisted group. Three patients had neurogenic stress urinary incontinence. Most patients had undergone previous procedures for urinary incontinence (15 in the open group and seven in the robotic group). Mean operative time was similar in both groups (214 vs. 211 min; p = 0.90). Postoperative complicationsrate was lower in the robot-assisted group (25 vs. 75 %; p = 0.02). There was a trend toward a lower intraoperative complication rate (37.5 vs. 62.5 %; p = 0.25), decreased blood loss (17 ml vs. 275 ml; p = 0.22), and shorter length of stay (3.5 vs. 9.3 days; p = 0.09) in the robot-assisted group. Continence rates were comparable in both groups (75 vs. 68.8 %; p = 0.75). Three AUS explantations were needed in the open group (18.8 %) compared with one in the robot-assisted group (12.5 %; p = 0.70).
Conclusions
In female patients, the robot-assisted approach compared with open AUS implantation could decrease intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, length of hospital stay, and blood loss.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams P, Andersson KE, Birder L et al (2010) Fourth International Consultation on Incontinence Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, and fecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 29:213–240
Lucas MG, Bosch RJ, Burkhard FC et al (2012) EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 62(6):1118–1129
Matsushita K, Chughtai BI, Maschino AC et al (2012) International variation in artificial urinary sphincter use. Urology 80(3):667–672
Chartier-Kastler E, Van Kerrebroeck P, Olianas R et al (2011) Artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800) implantation for women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: a technique for insiders? BJU Int 107(10):1618–1626
Mandron E, Bryckaert PE, Papatsoris AG (2010) Laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter implantation for female genuine stress urinary incontinence: technique and 4-year experience in 25 patients. BJU Int 106(8):1194–1198
Rouprêt M, Misraï V, Vaessen C et al (2010) Laparoscopic approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency incontinence: a single-centre preliminary experience. Eur Urol 57(3):499–504
Biardeau X, Rizk J, Marcelli F et al (2015) Robot-assisted laparoscopic approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation in 11 women with urinary stress incontinence: surgical technique and initial experience. Eur Urol 67(5):937–942
Fournier G, Callerot P, Thoulouzan M et al (2014) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency incontinence: initial results. Urology 84(5):1094–1098
Costa P, Poinas G, Ben Naoum K et al (2013) Long-term results of artificial urinary sphincter for women with type III stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 63(4):753–758
Phé V, Benadiba S, Rouprêt M et al (2014) Long-term functional outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 113(6):961–967
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240(2):205–213
Mitropoulos D, Artibani W, Graefen M et al (2012) Reporting and grading of complications after urologic surgical procedures: an ad hoc EAU guidelines panel assessment and recommendations. Eur Urol 61(2):341–349
Petero VG Jr, Diokno AC (2006) Comparison of the long-term outcomes between incontinent men and women treated with artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol 175(2):605–609
Abbassian A (1988) A new operation for insertion of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol 140(3):512–513
Ngninkeu BN, van Heugen G, di Gregorio M et al (2005) Laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter in women for type III incontinence: preliminary results. Eur Urol 47(6):793–797
Kehlet H, Wilmore DW (2008) Evidence-based surgical care and the evolution of fast-track surgery. Ann Surg 248(2):189–198
Thomas K, Venn SN, Mundy AR (2002) Outcome of the artificial urinary sphincter in female patients. J Urol 167(4):1720–1722
Vayleux B, Rigaud J, Luyckx F et al (2011) Female urinary incontinence and artificial urinary sphincter: study of efficacy and risk factors for failure and complications. Eur Urol 59(6):1048–1053
Clarke A, Rosen R (2001) Length of stay. How short should hospital care be? Eur J Pub Health 11(2):166–170
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Benjamin Pradere (Department of Urology, CHU Rennes) and Dr. Quentin Alimi (Department of Urology, CHU Rennes), for their contributions to data collection of this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
None.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peyronnet, B., Vincendeau, S., Tondut, L. et al. Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence: preliminary comparison of robot-assisted and open approaches. Int Urogynecol J 27, 475–481 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2858-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2858-7