Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter implantation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
World Journal of Urology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate long-term functional outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in men for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence.

Materials and methods

Patients who underwent artificial urinary sphincter implant for non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence between June 1989 and January 2020 were included in this single-centre retrospective series. All patients with a functional artificial urinary sphincter in situ were contacted to evaluate long-term functional outcomes using validated questionnaires.

Results

A total of 263 patients were included in this retrospective series with a mean follow-up of 61 months. Explant-free survival after 5 years was 75% with a median time to explant of 16.2 years. Revision-free implant survival was 62% after 5 years with a median revision-free implant survival rate of 10.8 years. Previous pelvic irradiation, history of stricture disease and previous artificial urinary sphincter implant were associated with decreased implant survival. Overall social continence rate after 5 years was 60%. Prior radiation therapy, anticoagulation therapy and previous anti-incontinence surgery were associated with a higher incontinence risk. On long-term evaluation of 158 patients with their artificial urinary sphincter currently in situ, 51% were socially continent and 29% reported they were totally dry. Of these patients, 92% indicated to be satisfied with their current continence status.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter implant incontinence needed revision or explant surgery. Long-term continence rates are acceptable but tend to decrease by time. Nonetheless, if patients can maintain a functional AUS in situ, long-term patient satisfaction rates remain high.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Code availability

The data for this project are confidential, but may be obtained in agreement with the General Data Protection Regulation of the University Hospitals Leuven. Researchers interested in access to the data may contact the corresponding author. It can take some months to negotiate data use agreements and gain access to the data. The author will assist with any reasonable replication attempts for two years following publication.

Abbreviations

AUS:

Artificial urinary sphincter

PGII:

Patient Global Improvement Indices Score

UDS:

Urodynamic study

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

References

  1. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW (1974) Treatment of urinary incontinence by an implantable prosthetic urinary sphincter. J Urol 112:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59647-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR et al (2013) The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol 63:681–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaiho Y, Masuda H, Takei M et al (2018) Surgical and patient reported outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Urol 199:245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.08.077

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS (2015) Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology 86:602–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.05.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Collado Serra A, Domínguez-Escrig J, Gómez-Ferrer Á et al (2017) Prospective follow-up study of artificial urinary sphincter placement preserving the bulbospongiosus muscle. Neurourol Urodyn 36:1387–1394. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kretschmer A, Nitti V (2017) Surgical treatment of male postprostatectomy incontinence: current concepts. Eur Urol Focus 3:364–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Abrams P, Constable LD, Cooper D et al (2021) Outcomes of a noninferiority randomised controlled trial of surgery for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER). Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2021.01.024

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lin DY, Wei LJ (1989) The robust inference for the cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 84:1074–1078. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1989.10478874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lai HH, Hsu EI, Teh BS et al (2007) 13 Years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine. J Urol 177:1021–1025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Litwiller SE, Kim KB, Fone PD et al (1996) Post-prostatectomy incontinence and the artificial urinary sphincter: a long-term study of patient satisfaction and criteria for success. J Urol 156:1975–1980. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(01)65408-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME et al (2016) Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes among primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter implantations in men with stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 196:838–843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.076

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Paolone DR (2001) Long-term continence and patient satisfaction after artificial sphincter implantation for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. J Urol 166:547–549

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S et al (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 179:1912–1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Haab F, Trockman BA, Zimmern PE, Leach GE (1997) Quality of life and continence assessment of the artificial urinary sphincter in men with minimum 3.5 years of follow up. J Urol 158:435–439

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hüsch T, Kretschmer A, Thomsen F et al (2017) Risk factors for failure of male slings and artificial urinary sphincters: results from a Large Middle European Cohort Study. Urol Int 99:14–21. https://doi.org/10.1159/000449232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bates AS, Martin RM, Terry TR (2015) Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 116:623–633. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rivera ME, Linder BJ, Ziegelmann MJ et al (2016) The impact of prior radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter device survival. J Urol 195:1033–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank Annouschka Laenen for her statistical advice.

Funding

The authors report they received no funding for this study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yves Deruyver and Charlotte Schillebeeckx share first authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University Hospitals Leuven, Herestraat 49, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Yves Deruyver, Charlotte Schillebeeckx, Elodie Beels, Dirk De Ridder & Frank Van der Aa

Authors
  1. Yves Deruyver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlotte Schillebeeckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elodie Beels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dirk De Ridder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Frank Van der Aa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concept and design: CS, YD and FVDA. Acquisition of data: CS and YD. Analysis and interpretation of data: CS and YD. Drafting of the manuscript: CS and YD. Critical revision of the manuscript: EB, DDR and FVDA. Statistical analysis: CS, YD and FVDA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frank Van der Aa.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

C.S., Y.D. and E.B. have nothing to disclose. D.D.R. reports personal fees from Astellas and Apogepha, grants and personal fees from AMS, Allergan, Bard and Medtronic, outside of the submitted work. F.V.D.A. is a proctor and advisor for and has received travel grants from Boston Scientific and Coloplast.

Ethics approval

This study had been approved by the competent ethics committee and all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of the data were followed. All data were encrypted and kept confidential.

Availability of data and material

All data are available at the urology department of the University Hospitals, Leuven, Belgium.

Consent to participate

All patients that participated in de telephone questionnaire gave their explicit informed consent.

Consent for publication

All authors have given their consent for publication.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

345_2021_3877_MOESM1_ESM.docx

Supplementary file1 Overview of patient charactistics, peroperative parameters and post-operative complications. (DOCX 18 KB)

Supplementary file2 Reasons for AUS explant B. Reasons for AUS revision/maintenance. (DOCX 14 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Deruyver, Y., Schillebeeckx, C., Beels, E. et al. Long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter implantation. World J Urol 40, 497–503 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03877-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03877-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation