Skip to main content
Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology 5/2020

25.07.2019 | Original Article

Determinants and prognostic value of post-operative maximum urethral closure pressure after artificial urinary sphincter in men

verfasst von: Imad Bentellis, Mehdi El-Akri, Juliette Hascoet, Quentin Alimi, Romain Mathieu, Sébastien Vincendeau, Jacques Kerdraon, Caroline Voiry, Andrea Manunta, Benoit Peyronnet

Erschienen in: World Journal of Urology | Ausgabe 5/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the determinants and prognostic value of post-operative maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) after AUS implantation in male patients.

Methods

The charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2008 and 2018 at a single center were reviewed retrospectively for an exploratory study. A post-operative urethral profilometry was performed systematically as part of routine daily practice over the study period to assess the post-operative MUCP with the AUS consecutively closed (c-MUCP) and opened (o-MUCP). The difference between c-MUCP and the manufacturer’s theoretical pressure objective determined by the pressure regulating balloon (PRB) was calculated (diff-th-MUCP). The primary endpoint was social continence at 3 months defined as 0–1 protection/day.

Results

Ninety patients were included. The median age was 71 years, and the median follow-up was 50 months. The etiology of incontinence was radical prostatectomy in 84% of cases, and endoscopic prostate surgery in 6.6% of patients. There were 74.4% of patients who were socially continent at 3 months. The c-MCUP was significantly higher in the continent group (53 [42.2, 60.2] vs 62 [58, 70] p = 0.02). The diff-th-MUCP did not differ significantly between the two groups (18 [0, 23] vs 1 [− 2, 7.7] p = 0.29). The c-MUCP was not statistically associated with the risk of revision and/or explantation.

Conclusion

The MUCP after AUS implantation in male patients often differs from the manufacturer’s pressure objective. The postoperative c-MUCP might be significantly associated with functional outcomes suggesting that it might be a valuable tool for treatment decision-making. This should be confirmed by larger studies.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW (1973) Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter. Urology 1(3):252–259PubMedCrossRef Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW (1973) Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter. Urology 1(3):252–259PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Linder BJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS (2018) Evaluating success rates after artificial urinary sphincter placement: a comparison of clinical definitions. Urology 113:220–224PubMedCrossRef Linder BJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS (2018) Evaluating success rates after artificial urinary sphincter placement: a comparison of clinical definitions. Urology 113:220–224PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Solomon E, Kass-Iliyya A, Malde S, Kirkham APS, Greenwell TJ, Ockrim JL (2017) The correlation between retrograde leak point pressure and 24-hour pad weight. Neurourol Urodyn 36(4):1119–1123PubMedCrossRef Solomon E, Kass-Iliyya A, Malde S, Kirkham APS, Greenwell TJ, Ockrim JL (2017) The correlation between retrograde leak point pressure and 24-hour pad weight. Neurourol Urodyn 36(4):1119–1123PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Peyronnet B, Gamé X, Elliott DS (2018) Risky business: adjusting the pressure of the artificial urinary sphincter reservoir. Prog Urol 28(7):359–360PubMedCrossRef Peyronnet B, Gamé X, Elliott DS (2018) Risky business: adjusting the pressure of the artificial urinary sphincter reservoir. Prog Urol 28(7):359–360PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lowe DH, Scherz HC, Parsons CL (1988) Urethral pressure profilometry in Scott artificial urinary sphincter. Urology 31(1):82–85PubMedCrossRef Lowe DH, Scherz HC, Parsons CL (1988) Urethral pressure profilometry in Scott artificial urinary sphincter. Urology 31(1):82–85PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Kil PJ, De Vries JD, Van Kerrebroeck PE, Zwiers W, Debruyne FM (1989) Factors determining the outcome following implantation of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter. Br J Urol 64(6):586–589PubMedCrossRef Kil PJ, De Vries JD, Van Kerrebroeck PE, Zwiers W, Debruyne FM (1989) Factors determining the outcome following implantation of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter. Br J Urol 64(6):586–589PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Haab F et al (2008) Comprehensive evaluation of bladder and urethral dysfunction symptoms: development and psychometric validation of the Urinary Symptom Profile (USP) questionnaire. Urology 71(4):646–656PubMedCrossRef Haab F et al (2008) Comprehensive evaluation of bladder and urethral dysfunction symptoms: development and psychometric validation of the Urinary Symptom Profile (USP) questionnaire. Urology 71(4):646–656PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P (2004) ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 23(4):322–330PubMedCrossRef Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ, Shaw C, Gotoh M, Abrams P (2004) ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 23(4):322–330PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Lose G et al (2002) Standardisation of urethral pressure measurement: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the international continence society. Neurourol Urodyn 21(3):258–260PubMedCrossRef Lose G et al (2002) Standardisation of urethral pressure measurement: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the international continence society. Neurourol Urodyn 21(3):258–260PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Fassi-Fehri H et al (2008) AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter implantation: can the penoscrotal approach constitute an alternative to the perineal approach? Prog Urol 18(3):177–182PubMedCrossRef Fassi-Fehri H et al (2008) AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter implantation: can the penoscrotal approach constitute an alternative to the perineal approach? Prog Urol 18(3):177–182PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Henry GD, Graham SM, Cleves MA, Simmons CJ, Flynn B (2008) Perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation appears to control male stress incontinence better than the transscrotal approach. J Urol 179(4):1475–1479 (discussion 1479) PubMedCrossRef Henry GD, Graham SM, Cleves MA, Simmons CJ, Flynn B (2008) Perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation appears to control male stress incontinence better than the transscrotal approach. J Urol 179(4):1475–1479 (discussion 1479) PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Kretschmer A et al (2016) Complications and short-term explantation rate following artificial urinary sphincter implantation: results from a large middle european multi-institutional case series. Urol Int 97(2):205–211PubMedCrossRef Kretschmer A et al (2016) Complications and short-term explantation rate following artificial urinary sphincter implantation: results from a large middle european multi-institutional case series. Urol Int 97(2):205–211PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Development Core Team R (2008) R Software. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna Development Core Team R (2008) R Software. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Ripert T, Pierrevelcin J (2018) Comparative study of urodynamic tests after AMS 800 and ZSI 375 insertion. Urologia 85(1):15–18PubMedCrossRef Ripert T, Pierrevelcin J (2018) Comparative study of urodynamic tests after AMS 800 and ZSI 375 insertion. Urologia 85(1):15–18PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Chung E, Ranaweera M, Cartmill R (2012) Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device: newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters. BJU Int 110:5–11PubMedCrossRef Chung E, Ranaweera M, Cartmill R (2012) Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device: newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters. BJU Int 110:5–11PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Phé V, Rouprêt M, Chartier-Kastler E (2013) Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device. BJU Int 112(4):E426–E428PubMedCrossRef Phé V, Rouprêt M, Chartier-Kastler E (2013) Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device. BJU Int 112(4):E426–E428PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Leach GE, Raz S (1983) Perfusion sphincterometry. Method of intraoperative evaluation of artificial urinary sphincter function. Urology 21(3):312–314PubMedCrossRef Leach GE, Raz S (1983) Perfusion sphincterometry. Method of intraoperative evaluation of artificial urinary sphincter function. Urology 21(3):312–314PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Bugeja S, Ivaz SL, Frost A, Andrich DE, Mundy AR (2016) Urethral atrophy after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: fact or fiction? BJU Int 117(4):669–676PubMedCrossRef Bugeja S, Ivaz SL, Frost A, Andrich DE, Mundy AR (2016) Urethral atrophy after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: fact or fiction? BJU Int 117(4):669–676PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Srivastava A, Joice GA, Patel HD, Manka MG, Sopko NA, Wright EJ (2018) Impact of adjuvant radiation on artificial urinary sphincter durability in postprostatectomy patients. Urology 114:212–217PubMedCrossRef Srivastava A, Joice GA, Patel HD, Manka MG, Sopko NA, Wright EJ (2018) Impact of adjuvant radiation on artificial urinary sphincter durability in postprostatectomy patients. Urology 114:212–217PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Determinants and prognostic value of post-operative maximum urethral closure pressure after artificial urinary sphincter in men
verfasst von
Imad Bentellis
Mehdi El-Akri
Juliette Hascoet
Quentin Alimi
Romain Mathieu
Sébastien Vincendeau
Jacques Kerdraon
Caroline Voiry
Andrea Manunta
Benoit Peyronnet
Publikationsdatum
25.07.2019
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
World Journal of Urology / Ausgabe 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02884-7

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2020

World Journal of Urology 5/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.