A Systematic Approach to the Evaluation and Management of the Failed Artificial Urinary Sphincter
In men with post-prostatectomy incontinence, persistent or recurrent urinary leakage following artificial urinary sphincter placement is a frustrating complaint. Surgical failure can be classified as occurring early in the post-operative period vs. late—following a period of established continence—and should be managed according to the time course and severity of urinary leakage. We present a systematic approach for the evaluation and treatment of the failed artificial urinary sphincter. After considering the patient’s individualized treatment goals and impact on quality of life, the clinician can more appropriately advise patients on a management strategy for their recurrent or persistent urinary incontinence following artificial urinary sphincter placement.
KeywordsArtificial urinary sphincter Equipment failure Incidence Overactive urinary bladder Prostatectomy Prostatic neoplasms
Artificial urinary sphincter
Intrinsic sphincter deficiency
Pressure regulating balloon
Stress urinary incontinence
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Amy D. Dobberfuhl is a Principle Investigator for SUFU Foundation Study of Chemodenervation funded by the Allergan Foundation.
Craig V. Comiter is a consultant and clinical investigator for Coloplast.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 32.•• Simhan J, Morey AF, Zhao LC, Tausch TJ, Scott JF, Hudak SJ, et al. Decreasing need for artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery by precise cuff sizing in men with spongiosal atrophy. J Urol. 2014;192(3):798–803. In a sample of 236 men who underwent AUS at one institution, 4.0 cm cuff revisions improved from 22.2% down to 4.7% after introduction of the 3.5-cm cuff, consistent with a national sample demonstrating a decrease in early revision rate from 16.2% in 2008–2009, down to 7.5% in 2010–2012, allowing for more precise cuff sizing in men with urethral circumference less than 4.0 cm.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.AMS 800 Urinary Control System for Male Patients. Operating room manual. Minnetonka: American Medical Systems, Inc; 2014. p. 40.Google Scholar
- 49.•• Linder BJ, Viers BR, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter mechanical failures—is it better to replace the entire device or just the malfunctioning component? J Urol. 2016;195(5):1523–8. Out of 1082 primary AUS placements, 125 demonstrated mechanical failure at a median follow-up of 4.2 years. The authors found no statistically significant difference in 3-year device survival after replacement of a single component if a single component was identified as the source of leakage vs. replacement of the entire device.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 60.Trost L, Elliott D. Small intestinal submucosa urethral wrap at the time of artificial urinary sphincter placement as a salvage treatment option for patients with persistent/recurrent incontinence following multiple prior sphincter failures and erosions. Urology. 2012;79(4):933–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar