A comparison of artificial urinary sphincter outcomes after primary implantation and first revision surgery

Abstract

Objective: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for severe male stress urinary incontinence, though evaluations of specific predictors for device outcomes are sparse. We sought to compare outcomes between primary and revision AUS surgery for non-infectious failures. Methods: We identified 2045 consecutive AUS surgeries at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) from 1983 to 2013. Of these, 1079 were primary AUS implantations and 281 were initial revision surgeries, which comprised our study group. Device survival rates, including overall and specific rates for device infection/erosion, urethral atrophy and mechanical failure, were compared between primary AUS placements versus revision surgeries. Patient follow-up was obtained through office examination, written correspondence, or telephone correspondence. Results: During the study period, 1079 (79.3%) patients had a primary AUS placement and 281 (20.7%) patients underwent a first revision surgery for mechanical failure or urethral atrophy. Patients undergoing revision surgery were found to have adverse 1- and 5-year AUS device survival on Kaplan–Meier analysis, 90% vs. 85% and 74% vs. 61%, respectively (p<0.001). Specifically, revision surgery was associated with a significantly increased cumulative incidence of explantation for device infection/urethral erosion (4.2% vs. 7.5% at 1 year; p=0.02), with similar rates of repeat surgery for mechanical failure (p=0.43) and urethral atrophy (p=0.77). Conclusions: Our findings suggest a significantly higher rate of overall device failure following revision AUS surgery, which is likely secondary to an increased rate of infection/urethral erosion events.

Keywords

• Artificial urinary sphincter
• Outcomes
• Revision
• Urinary incontinence
• Urethra
• Post prostatectomy incontinence