Artificial urinary sphincters for treating postprostatectomy incontinence: A contemporary experience from the UK

Figures & data

Table 1 Summary of patient demographics and outcomes

No. of patients	84
Age	Range 51–78 years
	Mean 69.25 years
	Median 69 years
Follow-up duration	Range 15–92 months
	Mean 39 months
Preoperative mean pad usage	6 pads/day
Postoperative mean pad usage	1 pad/day
Pelvic radiotherapy	15/83 (18%)
Completely dry (0 pad)	32/83 (38.5%)
≤1 pad/day	67/83 (80.7%)
Mechanical failure	9/83 (10.8%)
Reoperation/revision	11/83 (13.25%)
Infection/erosion	2/83 (2.4%)
Urethral atrophy	0/83 (0%)

Table 2 Summary of outcomes in comparison with similar series

Author	Type of study	Mean length of follow-up	Completely dry (0 pads)	Dry and improved (≤1 pad/day)	Mechanical failure	Reoperation/revision	Infection/erosion	Urethral atrophy
Mottet et al^Citation17	Prospective multicenter study	12–36 months	59/103 (57.3%)	74/103 (71.8%)	10 (9.7%)	22 (21%)	12 (11.6%)	Not reported
Walsh et al^Citation18	Retrospective single-center study	46 months	7/91 (18.7%)	81/91 (89%)	1 (1%)	26 (25%)	6 (6%)	9 (9%)
Trigo Rocha et al^Citation19	Retrospective single-center study	53 months	20/40 (50%)	36/40 (90%)	2 (5%)	8 (20%)	3 (7.5%)	2 (5%)
O’Connor et al^Citation20	Retrospective single-center study	60 months	7/29 (24%)	24/29 (82.7%)	3/29 (10.3%)	4 (14%)	4/29 (13.8%)	2/29 (6.9%)
Ramsay et al^Citation21	Retrospective single-center study	Not specified ≈48 months	Not reported	27/27 (100%)	2/27 (7.4%)	4/27 (15%)	2/27 (7.4%)	Not reported
Singh and Thomas^Citation22	Retrospective single-center study	41 months	18/21 (85.7%)	20/21 (95.2%)	2/21 (9.5%)	10/21 (47%)	2/21 (9.5%)	Not reported
Present study	Retrospective single-center study	39 months	32/83 (38.5%)	67/83 (80.7%)	9/83 (10.8%)	11/83 (13.25%)	2/83 (2.4%)	0/83 (0%)

Figure 1 Estimated mechanical failure-free survival (Y-axis represents survival probability, X-axis represents time in months).

Note: Kaplan–Meier curve for time to mechanical failure.

Figure 2 Estimated revision-free survival.

Note: Kaplan–Meier curve for time to revision surgery.

MottetNBoyerCChartier-KastlerENaoumKBRichardFCostaPArtificial urinary sphincter AMS 800 for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: the French experienceUrol Int199860Suppl 22529

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

WalshIKWilliamsSGMahendraVNambirajanTStoneARArtificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient: safety, efficacy and satisfactionBJU Int20028936436811872025

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Trigo RochaFGomesCMMitreAIArapSSrougiMA prospective study evaluating the efficacy of the artificial sphincter AMS 800 for the treatment of post radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence and the correlation between preoperative urodynamic and surgical outcomesUrology200871858918242371

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’ConnorRCNanigianDKPatelBNGuralnickMLEllisionLMStoneARArtificial urinary sphincter placement in elderly menUrology20076912612817270633

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

RamsayAKGranitsiotisPConnIGThe use of the artificial urinary sphincter in the west of Scotland: a single centre 10-year experienceScott Med J2007521417

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

SinghGThomasDGArtificial urinary sphincter for post prostatectomy incontinenceBr J Urol1996772482518800893

 PubMedGoogle Scholar