The experience of artificial urinary sphincter implantation by a single surgeon in 15 years

• Main Authors: Yuan-Chi Shen, Po-Hui Chiang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2013-03-01
• Series: Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences
• Subjects: AMS800; Artificial urinary sphincter; Incontinence; Infection; Urinary incontinence
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1607551X12002276

Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard treatment for urinary incontinence owing to sphincter incompetence. We reviewed our experience in AUS implantation. From 1995 to 2009, 19 patients underwent 25 AUS implantations performed by a single surgeon. The cause of incontinence was sphincter incompetence, which was secondary to prostate surgery, neurogenic bladder, radiation, and post-traumatic urethral lesion. Twenty-three prostheses were placed in the bulbar urethra for male patients: 11 AUS cuffs were placed through the perineal approach and 12 through the penoscrotal approach. Two procedures were applied over the bladder neck for the female patients. Through a retrospective review of charts, continence and complications were analyzed. The mean follow-up time was 50.0 ± 42.9 months (range: 2–146 months). There were 16 successful surgeries (64%), and these patients were free from the need for a pad. In eight surgeries (32%), the devices were removed due to infection, while one implantation (4%) was unsuccessful due to perforation into the bulbar urethra. There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.024) in failure rates between patients who received radiotherapy (100%) and other patients (22.7%). There was no statistically significant difference in dry and revision rates (p > 0.05) between the perineal and penoscrotal approach. Accordingly, over half of the patients with total incontinence benefitted from AUS implantation. In consideration of the high failure rate for patients receiving radiotherapy, caution should be exercised in the use of implantation. Secondary implantation has a satisfactory success rate in selected patients. The same success rate was noted for both perineal and penoscrotal approaches.