Advertisement

Long-term results of ProACT primary and repeat implantation for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men

  • Sebastian NestlerEmail author
  • C. Thomas
  • A. Neisius
  • P. Rubenwolf
  • F. Roos
  • C. Hampel
  • J. W. Thüroff
Original Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

Urinary incontinence in men after radical prostatectomy affects strongly quality of life. If conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment consists of implantable devices. If the requirement of manual dexterity in the artificial sphincter is to be avoided, the ProACT system offers a readjustable system, which shows good continence, but also high revision rates. Aim of our single-centre, single-surgeon study was to evaluate the success and revision rates of ProACT over long-term follow-up and if repeat ProACT implantation after failure would be a reasonable strategy.

Materials and methods

In May 2017, follow-up of all patients who underwent ProACT implantation between 2003 and 2013 was obtained. Parameters were numbers of pads used, filling volume of balloons, and patient-reported satisfaction. Furthermore, revisions were noted.

Results

Between 2003 and 2013, 134 patients were implanted a ProACT system. Median age was 71 years; median follow-up was 118 months. 112 implantations were successful (82.6%) and the number of pads used decreased significantly (p < 0.005). 63 patients were revised and 49 were successful (77.8%). No differences in success rate, pads used, or filling volume were seen (all p > 0.8). In a second revision, again, no differences in success rate or pads used were noted (all p > 0.7). Patients’ personal satisfaction was high despite the high revision rate.

Conclusion

In the hands of an experienced surgeon, ProACT is a safe and effective therapy for post-prostatectomy incontinence especially if mayor surgery is to be avoided. Revision rates are high, but the results of ProACT reimplantation are comparable to the results after the first implantation.

Keywords

Stress urinary incontinence Artificial urinary sphincter ProACT system 

Notes

Author contribution

S Nestler: project development, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript writing. C Thomas: data analysis and manuscript editing. A Neisius: data analysis and manuscript editing. P Rubenwolf: manuscript editing. FC Roos: manuscript editing. C Hampel: manuscript editing. JW Thüroff: manuscript writing and manuscript editing.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors were not compensated and retained the control over the content of the manuscript.

Research involving human participants

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients at time of follow-up.

References

  1. 1.
    Bauer RM, Gozzi C, Hübner W, Nitti VW, Novara G, Peterson A, Sandhu JS, Stief CG (2011) Contemporary management of postprostatectomy incontinence. Eur Urol 59(6):985–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shamliyan TA, Wyman JF, Ping R, Wilt TJ, Kane RL (2009) Male urinary incontinence: prevalence, risk factors, and preventive interventions. Rev Urol 11(3):145–165PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bauer RM, Bastian PJ, Gozzi C, Stief CG (2009) Postprostatectomy incontinence: all about diagnosis and management. Eur Urol 55(2):322–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rassweiler J (2009) Editorial comment on: four-year outcome of a prospective randomised trial comparing bipolar plasmakinetic and monopolar transurethral resection of the prostate. Eur Urol 55(4):929–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Porena M, Mearini E, Mearini L, Vianello A, Giannantoni A (2007) Voiding dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy: more than external urethral sphincter deficiency. Eur Urol 52(1):38–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gousse AE, Madjar S, Lambert MM, Fishman IJ (2001) Artificial urinary sphincter for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: long-term subjective results. J Urol 166(5):1755–1758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM (2008) Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol 179(5):1912–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elliott DS, Barrett DM (1998) Mayo Clinic long-term analysis of the functional durability of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: a review of 323 cases. J Urol 159(4):1206–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thüroff JW, Hohenfellner M, Schultz-Lampel D (1992) Die Harninkontinenz des Mannes. Faszienzügelplastik zur Therapie der Stressinkontinenz (german). Aktuelle Urol 23:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hübner WA, Gallistl H, Rutkowski M, Huber ER (2011) Adjustable bulbourethral male sling: experience after 101 cases of moderate-to-severe male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 107(5):777–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sousa-Escandón A, Cabrera J, Mantovani F, Moretti M, Ioanidis E, Kondelidis N, Neymeyer J, Noguera R (2007) Adjustable suburethral sling (male remeex system) in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol 52(5):1473–1479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Trigo-Rocha F, Gomes CM, Pompeo AC, Lucon AM, Arap S (2006) Prospective study evaluating efficacy and safety of Adjustable Continence Therapy (ProACT) for post radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Urology 67(5):965–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lebret T, Cour F, Benchetrit J, Grise P, Bernstein J, Delaporte V, Chartier-Kastler E, Botto H, Costa P (2008) Treatment of postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence using a minimally invasive adjustable continence balloon device, ProACT: results of a preliminary, multicenter, pilot study. Urology 71(2):256–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rouprêt M, Misraï V, Gosseine PN, Bart S, Cour F, Chartier-Kastler E (2011) Management of stress urinary incontinence following prostate surgery with minimally invasive adjustable continence balloon implants: functional results from a single center prospective study. J Urol 186(1):198–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yiou R, Butow Z, Baron T, Salomon L, Audureau E (2015) Adjustable continence therapy (ProACT™) after male sling failure for patients with post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a prospective study with one-year follow-up. World J Urol 33(9):1331–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kessler TM, La Framboise D, Trelle S, Fowler CJ, Kiss G, Pannek J, Schurch B, Sievert KD, Engeler DS (2010) Sacral neuromodulation for neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 58(6):865–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Nestler
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. Thomas
    • 2
  • A. Neisius
    • 2
  • P. Rubenwolf
    • 2
  • F. Roos
    • 2
  • C. Hampel
    • 2
  • J. W. Thüroff
    • 2
  1. 1.Urogate Bad VilbelBad VilbelGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations