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

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 oper...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International Brazilian Journal of Urology 2017-01, Vol.43 (1), p.150-154
Hauptverfasser: Santos, Junior, Augusto Cesar Soares Dos, Rodrigues, Luíza de Oliveira, Azevedo, Daniela Castelo, Carvalho, Lélia Maria de Almeida, Fernandes, Mariana Ribeiro, Avelar, Sandra de Oliveira Sapori, Horta, Maria Glória Cruvinel, Kelles, Silvana Márcia Bruschi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung: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.
ISSN:1677-5538
1677-6119
1677-6119
1677-5538
DOI:10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2016.0244