Advertisement

Effectiveness of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) to Treat Male Stress Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Cristina Esquinas
  • Javier C. Angulo
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) is a surgical device developed to treat male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate surgery. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of the ATOMS device to treat male SUI as described in the literature.

Methods

Two independent reviewers identified studies eligible for a systematic review and meta-analysis of various sources written in English, German and Spanish, using the databases PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. We excluded studies on female incontinence. We employed the DerSimonian and Laird method for defining heterogeneity, calculating the grouped standard mean deviation (SMD). The primary objective of this review is the assessment of clinical efficacy based on the achievement of dryness after device adjustment, defined as use of no pad or one safety pad per day (PPD). The secondary objective was focused on analysing improvement of incontinence with the device. Magnitude of effect was calculated by analysing decrease in pad count (PPD) and/or in 24-h pad test. Number and severity of complications according to Clavien–Dindo classification were also reviewed.

Results

The pooled data of 1393 patients from 20 studies (13 retrospective and 7 prospective) showed that treatment with ATOMS resulted in a mean 67% dryness rate and 90% improvement after adjustment. Mean total number of system fillings per patient was 2.4. Mean pad count and 24-h pad test decrease were − 4.14 PPD and − 443 cc, respectively. There is significant heterogeneity of the sample analysed, mainly based on variable baseline severity of incontinence, proportion of patients treated with irradiation and different generation devices. Proportion of irradiated patients affected dryness rate (p = 0.0014), together with baseline severity of incontinence (p = 0.0035) and different generation device used (p < 0.0001). Standardized mean follow-up was 20.9 months, with complications occurring in 16.4% (major complications 3.0%) and explantations in 5.75%. No randomized study has been developed so far to compare ATOMS to other devices for treating male SUI.

Conclusion

Despite the evidence being exclusively based on descriptive studies and limited follow-up, ATOMS has proven to be a safe alternative to treat different degrees of male SUI after prostate surgery. Better results are evidenced for patients with less than 6 PPD before implantation, non-irradiated patients and use of third-generation device with silicone-covered pre-attached scrotal port.

Keywords

Adjustable transobturator male system Effectiveness Male stress urinary incontinence Postprostatectomy incontinence Safety Urology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge David Lora and Juan Francisco Dorado (Pertica) for statistical analysis.

Funding

No source of funding was received for the study and publication.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship of this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for ths version to be published.

Disclosures

Cristina Esquinas and Javier Angulo declare that they have nothing to disclose.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article is based on previously conducted studies and is not itself a study with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article/as supplementary information files.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Supplementary material

12325_2018_852_MOESM1_ESM.docx (694 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 693 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Kretschmer A, Hübner W, Sandhu JS, Bauer RM. Evaluation and management of postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review of current literature. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2:245–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gratzke C, Bachmann A, Descazeaud A, et al. EAU guidelines on the assessment of non-neurogenic male lower urinary tract symptoms including benign prostatic obstruction. Eur Urol. 2015;67:1099–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montague DK. Artificial urinary sphincter: long-term results and patient satisfaction. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:835290.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/835290.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN, Young Academic Urologists Functional Urology Group. 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;63:681–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sahai A, Abrams P, Dmochowski R, Anding R. The role of male slings in post prostatectomy incontinence: ICI-RS 2015. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:927–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Radadia KD, Farber NJ, Shinder B, Polotti CF, Milas LJ, Tunuguntla HSGR. Management of postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review. Urology. 2018;113:13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chung E. Contemporary surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence: a review of technological advances in current continence surgery. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(Suppl 2):S112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angulo J, Arance I, Esquinas C, Dorado J, Marcelino J, Martins F. Outcome measures of adjustable transobturator male system with pre-attached scrotal port for male stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. Adv Ther. 2017;34:1173–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Esquinas C, Arance I, Pamplona J, Moraga A, Dorado JF, Angulo JC. Treatment of stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy with the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS®) with preattached scrotal port. Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42:473–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Comiter CV, Dobberfuhl AD. The artificial urinary sphincter and male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: which patient should get which procedure? Investig Clin Urol. 2016;57:3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bauer W, Brössner C. Adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: the surgical technique. Pelviperineology. 2011;30:10–8.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Angulo JC, Cruz F, Esquinas C, et al. Treatment of male stress urinary incontinence with the adjustable transobturator male system: outcomes of a multi-center Iberian study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:1458–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoda MR, Primus G, Schumann A, et al. Treatment of stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: adjustable transobturator male system—results of a multicenter prospective observational study. Urologe A. 2012;51:1576–83 (Article in German).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seweryn J, Bauer W, Ponholzer A, Schramek P. Initial experience and results with a new adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2012;187:956–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hoda MR, Primus G, Fischereder K, et al. Early results of a European multicentre experience with a new self-anchoring adjustable transobturator system for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men. BJU Int. 2013;111:296–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krause J, Tietze S, Behrendt W, Nast J, Hamza A. Reconstructive surgery for male stress urinary incontinence: experiences using the ATOMS® system at a single center. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW. 2014;3:Doc15.  https://doi.org/10.3205/iprs000056.
  17. 17.
    González SP, Cansino JR, Portilla MA, Rodriguez SC, Hidalgo L, De la Peña J. First experience with the ATOMS® implant, a new treatment option for male urinary incontinence. Cent Eur J Urol. 2014;67:387–91.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Friedl A, Bauer W, Rom M, Kivaranovic D, Lüftenegger W, Brössner C. Sexuality and erectile function after implantation of an adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) for urinary stress incontinence. A multi-institutional prospective study. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2016;87:306–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mühlstädt S, Friedl A, Mohammed N, et al. Five-year experience with the adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: a single-center evaluation. World J Urol. 2017;35:145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Friedl A, Mühlstädt S, Rom M, et al. Risk factors for treatment failure with the adjustable transobturator male system incontinence device: who will succeed, who will fail? Results of a multicenter study. Urology. 2016;90:189–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    El Badry MS, El Hefnawy AS, Gabr AH, Hammady AR. Use of the adjustable trans-obturator male sling system for the treatment of male incontinence. An initial experience. Afr J Urol. 2016;22:127–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hüsch T, Kretschmer A, Thomsen F, et al. Risk factors for failure of male slings and artificial urinary sphincters: Results from a large middle European cohort study. Urol Int. 2017;99:14–21 (Debates on Male Incontinence (DOMINO)-Project).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Buresova E, Vidlar A, Grepl M, Student Jr V, Student V. Single-centre experience in using the adjustable transobturator male system in treatment of stress urinary incontinence in patients after radical prostatectomy. J Clin Urol.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415817701054.
  24. 24.
    Friedl A, Mühlstädt S, Zachoval R, et al. Long-term outcome of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS): results of a European multicentre study. BJU Int. 2017;119:785–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Friedl A, Schneeweiss J, Stangl K, et al. The adjustable transobturator male system in stress urinary incontinence after transurethral resection of the prostate. Urology. 2017;109:184–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manso M, Alexandre B, Antunes-Lopes T, Martins-da-Silva C, Cruz F. Is the adjustable transobturator system ATOMS® useful for the treatment of male urinary incontinence in low to medium volume urological centers? Actas Urol Esp. 2018;42:267–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Angulo JC, Fonseca J, Esquinas C, et al. Adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS®) as treatment of stress urinary incontinence secondary to transurethral resection of the prostate. Actas Urol Esp. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2018.05.002.
  28. 28.
    Angulo JC, Esquinas C, Arance I, et al. Adjustable transobturator male system after failed surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence: a feasibility study. Urol Int. 2018;101:106–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwarzer G. Meta: an R package for meta-analysis. R New. 2007;7:40–5.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna; 2016. https://www.R-project.org/.
  32. 32.
    Habashy D, Losco G, Tse V, Collins R, Chan L. Mid-term outcomes of a male retro-urethral, transobturator synthetic sling for treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence: impact of radiotherapy and storage dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36:1147–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rivera ME, Linder BJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. The impact of prior radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter device survival. J Urol. 2016;195:1033–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barnard ND, Willett WC, Ding EL. The misuse of meta-analysis in nutrition research. JAMA. 2017;318:1435–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento Clínico, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Servicio de UrologíaHospital Universitario de GetafeGetafeSpain

Personalised recommendations