Risk factors for resurgery in men with artificial urinary sphincter: Role of urethral strictures. Issue 2 (8th October 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Traverso, Paolo; Mantica, Guglielmo; Gallo, Fabio; Benelli, Andrea; Becco, Davide; De Rose, Aldo Franco; Simonato, Alchiede
• Is Part Of: LUTS. Volume 11:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: O16
• Page End: O20
• Publication Date: 2017-10-08
• Subjects: artificial urinary sphincter -- incontinence -- male incontinence; Urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urinary Tract Physiological Phenomena -- Periodicals; 616.62
• DOI: 10.1111/luts.12205
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1757-5664

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: The aims of the present study were to evaluate the outcome of implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in male patients with iatrogenic urinary incontinence and to analyse possible risk factors for resurgery, with particular focus on the effects of posterior urethral strictures (US). Methods: The outcomes of AUS implantation surgeries performed by 2 surgeons on consecutive patients between January 1999 and 2015 were evaluated retrospectively. Univariate analysis with Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess correlations between resurgery (explantation or substitution of the urethral cuff) and risk factors. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with AUS survival and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and Kaplan–Meier were constructed. Patients who underwent resurgery for mechanical failure were excluded from the study. Results: In all, 73 male patients were monitored for a maximum of 190 months (median follow‐up duration 36 months). The risk of resurgery was 3.75‐fold greater in patients with than without stenosis (HR 3.75; 95% CI 1.47‐9.59). In addition, Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed a significantly shorter AUS survival time in patients with than without stenosis treatment. Conclusions: Prior treatment for US increases the relative risk of AUS failure. Despite not being an absolute contraindication for AUS implantation, we suggest that patients with previous treatment for US are informed of potential risks.