Abdominal vs Sub-Inguinal Placement of Pressure Regulating Balloon for Artificial Urinary Sphincter

To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion using an abdominal versus a sub-inguinal counterincision for pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement. This was a retrospective review of all AUS placements by a single surgeon from 2010-2020. Demog...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Urology (Ridgewood, N.J.) N.J.), 2022-12, Vol.170, p.216-220
Hauptverfasser: Lauwagie, Andrew, Kasabwala, Khushabu, Grove, Shawn, Elliott, Sean P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To compare peri- and postoperative outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion using an abdominal versus a sub-inguinal counterincision for pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement. This was a retrospective review of all AUS placements by a single surgeon from 2010-2020. Demographic, clinical, and surgical details were obtained from chart review. The cohorts were divided by PRB placement technique (sub-inguinal, abdominal, and attempted sub-inguinal converted intra-operatively to abdominal [“conversion group”]). There were 182 AUS devices placed. The sub-inguinal approach was successfully completed in 132/144 (92%) and converted to abdominal PRB placement in 12/144 (8.3%). The risk of conversion was not increased by prior laparoscopically-assisted robotic prostatectomy (LRP) or radiotherapy (RT). Median operative time was 62, 75, and 77 minutes for sub-inguinal, abdominal, and conversion groups, respectively ( P = 0.30). Time to device activation was 25.0, 32.0, and 37.5 days for abdominal, sub-inguinal, and conversion groups, respectively (P
ISSN:0090-4295
1527-9995
DOI:10.1016/j.urology.2022.07.034