Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Commentary on: Comparison of complication rates related to male urethral slings and artificial urinary sphincters for urinary incontinence: national multi-institutional analysis of ACS-NSQIP database

  • 565 Accesses

Both the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and male slings (MS) can be used for the treatment of male urinary stress incontinence. Whereas the AUS represents the gold standard and is indicated in moderate to severe incontinence, male slings are more often applied in mild to moderate incontinence [1]. In the present work, the authors compare complication rates of both procedures (n = 1205) that were prospectively gathered from a large independent multi-institutional database. Even though the paper provides no functional outcome data, does not analyze specific urologic complication and does not differentiate between different types of male slings, it still contains one important message for patient counseling, namely that both the AUS and MS procedures are safe and have a low 30-day complication rate (AUS: 5.1 % vs. MS: 2.8 %). This message is noteworthy especially because patients analyzed were high of age, mostly obese and had important comorbidities (see Table 1). However, because of its drawbacks the paper cannot be used to individually counsel patients, but it provides some excellent data for patients to motivate them for the regionally still underused surgical treatment of male urinary stress incontinence [2]. Because of this message, this work is important and the authors should be applauded for their work.

References

  1. 1.

    Comiter CV, Dobberfuhl AD (2016) The artificial urinary sphincter and male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: which patient should get which procedure. Investig Clin Urol 57(1):3–13

  2. 2.

    Liu JS, Hofer MD, Milose J, Oberlin DT, Flury SC, Morey AF, Gonzalez CM (2016) Male sling and artificial urethral sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence among certifying American Urologists. Urology 87:95–99

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to M. Horstmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Horstmann, M. Commentary on: 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 48, 1577 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1362-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Complication Rate
  • Urinary Incontinence
  • Important Message
  • Artificial Urinary Sphincter
  • Severe Incontinence