Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Management of Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: Artificial Urinary Sphincter Versus Male Slings

  • Male and Female Surgical Interventions (A Baumgarten, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Artificial urinary sphincters and male slings are the primary surgical management options available for male stress incontinence in the USA. In this review, we discuss advances in the assessment of male stress incontinence, the use of artificial urinary sphincters and male slings depending on specific clinical scenarios, and recent research into the use of both treatment options in the irradiated patient.

Recent Findings

The standing cough test correlates well with 24-h pad weights and is a low-cost and low-burden assessment that can be conducted on initial consultation. For radiated patients, the artificial urinary sphincter is generally recommended, but limited recent data suggest that male slings may be suitable for motivated, appropriately selected patients. While not yet available in the USA, limited early data comparing adjustable male slings to artificial urinary sphincters found improved continence outcomes for AUS.

Summary

Pre-operative evaluation is imperative in stratifying the severity of incontinence and guiding the choice between artificial urinary sphincters and male slings for male stress urinary incontinence. The surgeon must take into consideration patient medical and surgical history, as well as patient preference, in choosing an AUS versus a male sling, but generally, male slings offer good continence outcomes for mild to moderate SUI while AUS offer superior outcomes for men with more severe stress incontinence.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Nitti VW. The prevalence of urinary incontinence. Rev Urol. 2001;3(Supplement 1):S2.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Herschorn S, Gajewski J, Schulz J, Corcos J. A population-based study of urinary symptoms and incontinence: the Canadian Urinary Bladder Survey. BJU Int. 2008;101(1):52–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Smoger SH, Felice TL, Kloecker GH. Urinary incontinence among male veterans receiving care in primary care clinics. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132(7):547–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Markland AD, Goode PS, Redden DT, Borrud LG, Burgio KL. Prevalence of urinary incontinence in men: results from the national health and nutrition examination survey. J Urol. 2010;184(3):1022–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stone NN, Stock RG. Long-term urinary, sexual, and rectal morbidity in patients treated with iodine-125 prostate brachytherapy followed up for a minimum of 5 years. Urology. 2007;69(2):338–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu M, Pickles T, Berthelet E, Agranovich A, Kwan W, Tyldesley S, et al. Urinary incontinence in prostate cancer patients treated with external beam radiotherapy. Radiother Oncol. 2005;74(2):197–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rassweiler J, Teber D, Kuntz R, Hofmann R. Complications of transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP)—incidence, management, and prevention. Eur Urol. 2006;50(5):969–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ficarra V, Borghesi M, Suardi N, De Naeyer G, Novara G, Schatteman P, et al. Long-term evaluation of survival, continence and potency (SCP) outcomes after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). BJU Int. 2013;112(3):338–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sacco E, Prayer-Galetti T, Pinto F, Fracalanza S, Betto G, Pagano F, et al. Urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: incidence by definition, risk factors and temporal trend in a large series with a long-term follow-up. BJU Int. 2006;97(6):1234–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boorjian SA, Eastham JA, Graefen M, Guillonneau B, Karnes RJ, Moul JW, et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012;61(4):664–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yucel S, Baskin LS. An anatomical description of the male and female urethral sphincter complex. J Urol. 2004;171(5):1890–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wallner C, Dabhoiwala NF, DeRuiter MC, Lamers WH. The anatomical components of urinary continence. Eur Urol. 2009;55(4):932–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Koraitim MM. The male urethral sphincter complex revisited: an anatomical concept and its physiological correlate. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1683–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hoyland K, Vasdev N, Abrof A, Boustead G. Post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: etiology and prevention. Rev Urol. 2014;16(4):181.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. •• Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, Eastham JA, Gomez C, Kirages DJ, et al. Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2019;202(2):369–78. The updated AUA guidelines for male stress urinary incontinence after prostate treatments, which includes surgical management recommendations to help surgeons choose between artificial urinary sphincters and male slings depending on the degree of incontinence and the patient’s clinical history.

  16. Petrou SP, Elliott DS, Barrett DM. Artificial urethral sphincter for incontinence. Urology. 2000;56(3):353–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu J-N, Group YAUFU. 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(4):681–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tutolo M, Cornu JN, Bauer RM, Ahyai S, Bozzini G, Heesakkers J, et al. Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):710–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Linder BJ, Piotrowski JT, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement. J Urol. 2015;194(3):716–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Khouri RK, Ortiz NM, Dropkin BM, Joice GA, Baumgarten AS, Morey AF, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter complications: risk factors, workup, and clinical approach. Curr Urol Rep. 2021;22(5):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. • Kaufman MR, Milam DF, Johnsen NV, Cleves MA, Broghammer JA, Brant WO, et al. Prior radiation therapy decreases time to idiopathic erosion of artificial urinary sphincter: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2018;199(4):1037–41. Radiation therapy decreases the time to urethral erosion of artificial urinary sphincters by an average of 2 years. This study included 56 patients with idiopathic urethral erosion after AUS. There was a significant difference in the median time to erosion between the irradiated group (1 year) and the non-radiated group (3.15 years) (p = 0.03).

  22. Lai HH, Boone TB. Complex artificial urinary sphincter revision and reimplantation cases—how do they fare compared to virgin cases? J Urol. 2012;187(3):951–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. •• Fuller TW, Ballon-Landa E, Gallo K, Smith III TG, Ajay D, Westney OL, Elliott SP, Alsikafi NF, Breyer BN, Cohen AJ, Vanni AJ. Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and nonradiated cases. BJU Int. 2020;204(1):110–4. Prior AUS implantation does not increase the risk of complications with subsequent AUS implantation in the absence of additional risk factors for complication. Historically, previous AUS implantation was thought to be a risk factor for complications itself, but this paper controlled for other comorbidities and patient characteristics to determine that prior implantation itself is not a risk factor for repeat implant complications.

  24. • Sundaram V, Cordon BH, Hofer MD, Morey AF. Is risk of artificial urethral sphincter cuff erosion higher in patients with penile prosthesis? J Sex Med. 2016;13(9):1432–7. Men with both an AUS and an inflatable penile prosthesis have higher rates of AUS erosions compared to men with only an AUS.

  25. • McKibben MJ, Shakir N, Fuchs JS, Scott JM, Morey AF. Erosion rates of 3.5‐cm artificial urinary sphincter cuffs are similar to larger cuffs. BJU Int. 2019;123(2):335–41. There is no difference in urethral erosion rates between the 3.5-cm AUS cuff and larger cuff sizes. A larger cuff size should not be selected simply due to the theory that larger cuffs have decreased erosion rate. In this study, the risk factor that most increased erosion rates was a history of pelvic radiation.

  26. •• Diao L, Nealon SW, Carpinito GP, Badkhshan S, Wolfe AR, Dropkin BM, et al. Presenting signs and symptoms of artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion. Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48:679–85. Data from 13 years of AUS implantation with nearly 900 cases demonstrated a 6.8% rate of urethral erosion. The majority of these men presented with scrotal inflammation, including tenderness, swelling, and erythema, while only a minority presented with either increased incontinence or obstructive symptoms.

  27. Elliot DS, Barrett DM. Mayo Clinic long-term analysis of the functional durability of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: a review of 323 cases. J Urol. 1998;159(4):1206–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Welk BK, Herschorn S. The male sling for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review of contemporary sling designs and outcomes. BJU Int. 2012;109(3):328–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Meisterhofer K, Herzog S, Strini KA, Sebastianelli L, Bauer R, Dalpiaz O. Male slings for postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6(3):575–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. • Grabbert M, Hüsch T, Kretschmer A, Kirschner-Hermanns R, Anding R, Rose A, et al. Comparison of adjustable male slings and artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of male urinary incontinence: a retrospective analysis of patient selection and postoperative continence status. World J Urol. 2019;37(7):1415–20. Demonstrates non-inferiority of the adjustable male sling for male stress urinary incontinence in comparison to artificial urinary sphincters. In this cohort, AUS implantation resulted in better continence than adjustable slings, even with a more complicated patient cohort with worse pre-operative leakage in the AUS group.

  31. Li H, Gill BC, Nowacki AS, Montague DK, Angermeier KW, Wood HM, et al. Therapeutic durability of the male transobturator sling: midterm patient reported outcomes. J Urol. 2012;187(4):1331–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bauer RM, Grabbert MT, Klehr B, Gebhartl P, Gozzi C, Homberg R, et al. 36-month data for the AdVance XP® male sling: results of a prospective multicentre study. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):626–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13704.

  33. McCall AN, Rivera ME, Elliott DS. Long-term follow-up of the virtue quadratic male sling. Urology. 2016;93:213–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • Abramowitz D, Sam A-P, Pachorek M, Shen J, Ruel N, Warner JN. Virtue male sling outcomes and application to a contemporary nomogram. Can J Urol. 2021;28(2):10625–30. Surgical success and adverse events of the Virtue Sling. A key predictive factor of Virtue sling success, like the AdVance sling, is evidence of maintained sphincter function pre-operatively.

  35. Morey AF. Re: AdVance/AdVance XP Transobturator male slings: preoperative degree of incontinence as predictor of surgical outcome. J Urol. 2013;190(6):2146.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bauer RM, Mayer ME, Gratzke C, Soljanik I, Buchner A, Bastian PJ, et al. Prospective evaluation of the functional sling suspension for male postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: results after 1 year. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):928–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Alwaal A, Harris CR, Awad MA, Allen IE, Breyer BN. 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. 2016;48(10):1571–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Chung AS, Suarez OA, McCammon KA. AdVance male sling. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6(4):674.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. • Sacco E, Bientinesi R, Gandi C, Di Gianfrancesco L, Pierconti F, Racioppi M, et al. Patient pad count is a poor measure of urinary incontinence compared with 48‐h pad test: results of a large‐scale multicentre study. BJU Int. 2019;123(5A):E69-E78. While pad count is significantly easier for a patient to assess than a 48-h pad weight, pad usage habits vary greatly between patients, and pad count is not an accurate assessment for male stress urinary incontinence.

  40. Dylewski DA, Jamison MG, Borawski KM, Sherman ND, Amundsen CL, Webster GD. A statistical comparison of pad numbers versus pad weights in the quantification of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(1):3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Krhut J, Zachoval R, Smith PP, Rosier PF, Valanský L, Martan A, et al. Pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(5):507–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. •• Khouri RK Jr, Yi YA, Ortiz NM, Baumgarten AS, Ward EE, VanDyke ME, et al. Standing cough test stratification of moderate male stress urinary incontinence. Int Braz J Urol. 2021;47:415–22. Presents the Male Stress Incontinence Grading Scale (MSIGS) and its utility in stratifying moderate male stress urinary incontinence to help guide the selection of a male sling versus artificial urinary sphincter as a surigical treatment modality.

  43. Morey AF, Singla N, Carmel M, Klein A, Tausch TJ, Siegel J, et al. Standing cough test for evaluation of post-prostatectomy incontinence: a pilot study. Can J Urol. 2017;24(1):8664–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. • Yi YA, Keith CG, Graziano CE, Davenport MT, Bergeson RL, Christine BS, et al. Strong correlation between standing cough test and 24‐hour pad weights in the evaluation of male stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(1):319–23. Demonstrated a strong correlation between 24-h pad weights and the standing cough test. While the 24-h pad weight is historically the gold standard for assessing male stress incontinence, it is burdensome to the patient. The standing cough test can be used in the initial consultation to score the degree of severity of male SUI.

  45. Moser DC, D’ancona CA, Voris BR, Lahan D, Jani K, Henry GD. Proposal of a new way to evaluate the external sphincter funciton prior to male sling surgery. Int Braz J Urol. 2019;45:354–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Bauer RM, Gozzi C, Roosen A, Khoder W, Trottmann M, Waidelich R, Stief CG, Soljanik I. Impact of the ‘repositioning test’ on postoperative outcome of retroluminar transobturator male sling implantation. Urol Int. 2013;90(3):334–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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(1):3–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Trost L, Elliott DS. Male stress urinary incontinence: a review of surgical treatment options and outcomes. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:287489. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/287489.

  49. • Li Marzi V, Morselli S, Fusco F, Baldesi R, Campi R, Liaci A, et al. Advance Xp® male sling can be an effective and safe treatment for post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence also in patients with prior history of external beam radiation therapy: a multicentric experience. Surg Innov. 2021;28(6):723–30. A multicenter retrospective review that demonstrates the safety and efficacy of the Advance Xp male sling for stress urinary incontinence in men with a history of radiation therapy.

  50. Kumar A, Litt ER, Ballert KN, Nitti VW. Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence—what do patients choose? J Urol. 2009;181(3):1231–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, 75390-9110, USA

    Blake E. Johnson & Allen F. Morey

Authors
  1. Blake E. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allen F. Morey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allen F. Morey.

Ethics declarations

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.

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Allen Morey receives honoraria for being a guest lecturer/meeting participant for Boston Scientific and Coloplast Corp.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Male and Female Surgical Interventions

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johnson, B.E., Morey, A.F. Surgical Management of Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: Artificial Urinary Sphincter Versus Male Slings. Curr Sex Health Rep 14, 158–164 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00349-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00349-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation