International Brazilian Journal of Urology ()

Artificial urinary sphincter for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a historical cohort from 2004 to 2015

  • Augusto Cesar Soares dos Santos Junior,
  • Luíza de Oliveira Rodrigues,
  • Daniela Castelo Azevedo,
  • Lélia Maria de Almeida Carvalho,
  • Mariana Ribeiro Fernandes,
  • Sandra de Oliveira Sapori Avelar,
  • Maria da Glória Cruvinel Horta,
  • Silvana Márcia Bruschi Kelles

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0244
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 43, no. 1
pp. 150 – 154

Abstract

Read online

ABSTRACT This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate a cohort of patients with prostate cancer and persistent urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy. From January 2004 to December 2015, eighty-six individuals were identified to have received an AUS implant, provided by a private nonprofit HMO operating in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. On total, there were 91 AUS implants, with a median interval between radical prostatectomy and AUS implant of 3.6 years (IQR 1.9 to 5.5). The rate of AUS cumulative survival, after a median follow-up of 4.1 years (IQR 1.7-7.2 years), was 44% (n=40). The median survival of AUS implants was 2.9 years (IQR 0.5-7.9 years). Thirty-seven AUS implants (40.7%) resulted in grade III surgical complications. There were 5 deaths at 2.1, 4.7, 5.7, 5.7 and 6.5 years of follow-up, but none due to causes directly associated to the AUS implant. Persistent severe incontinence was documented in 14 (15.3%) additional patients. From the 51 AUS implants which resulted in grade III surgical complications or persistent severe incontinence, 24 (47.1%) underwent surgical revisions. Explantation of the sphincter or its components was observed in 6 cases (25.0%). Mechanical failure, described as fluid loss and/or inability to recycle the AUS device, was observed in 4 devices (16.7%). In conclusion, although AUS implants are recommended as the gold-standard treatment of severe urinary incontinence after prostatectomy, the observed high rates of malfunction and grade III adverse events are a matter of concern warranting further assessment on the safety and efficacy of these devices.

Keywords