Do the etiological factors in artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation cases affect success and complications?


Creative Commons License

NALBANT İ., Tuygun C., Öztürk U., Göktuğ H. N. G. , Karakoyunlu A. N. , SELMİ V., ...More

Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, vol.48, no.6, pp.1263-1267, 2018 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 48 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2018
  • Doi Number: 10.3906/sag-1805-150
  • Journal Name: Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
  • Page Numbers: pp.1263-1267
  • Keywords: Urethra, prostatectomy, urinary sphincter, artificial, POSTPROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE, RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY, IMPLANTATION, OUTCOMES, REVISION, CANCER
  • Lokman Hekim University Affiliated: Yes

Abstract

© TÜBİTAK.Background/aim: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is still one of the best options for incontinence treatment. It may also have an advantage for revision or reimplantation in the management of complications. In this study we aimed to discuss the etiological factors for AUS reimplantation and effects of these etiological factors on success rates, patient satisfaction rates, time to reimplantation surgery, and complications. Materials and methods: Data from 30 patients for whom AUS reimplantation was performed were analyzed retrospectively. Incontinence due to fluid loss from the cuff or reservoir balloon, inability of the cuff to adequately compress the urethra, and devices that were thought to have completed their lifespans were defined as mechanical reasons while incontinence caused by conditions such as cuff erosion and infection were defined as nonmechanical reasons. Patients who went through reimplantation due to mechanical and nonmechanical causes were included in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. Success rates, patient satisfaction rates, time between the implantation of the first and second AUS, and complications were compared between the groups. Results: The mean follow-up period was 79 (3–308) months for patients who went through primary AUS implantation due to postprostatectomy incontinence. Our success rates were found as 75% and 66% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively. The differences between the groups in terms of success and patient satisfaction rates were not statistically significant, while the time to reimplantation was longer in Group 1 and statistically significant. Conclusion: Reasons for AUS reimplantation may affect the success and patient satisfaction rates. Our success rates of AUS performed for nonmechanical reasons were slightly lower, but not statistically significantly so. AUS reimplantation may take a longer time if mechanical failure is detected.