6533b838fe1ef96bd12a46d6

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Risk factors for resurgery in men with artificial urinary sphincter: Role of urethral strictures

Guglielmo ManticaPaolo TraversoDavide BeccoSimonato AlchiedeFabio GalloAldo Franco De RoseAndrea Benelli

subject

MaleReoperationMale incontinencemedicine.medical_specialtyUrology030232 urology & nephrologyUrinary incontinenceArtificial urinary sphincter03 medical and health sciences0302 clinical medicineRisk FactorsmedicineHumansContraindicationSurvival analysisAgedProportional Hazards ModelsRetrospective StudiesAged 80 and overUrethral StrictureUnivariate analysisIncontinence030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicinebusiness.industryHazard ratioMiddle AgedArtificial urinary sphinctermedicine.diseaseSurgeryStenosisUrinary IncontinenceNeurologyRelative riskUrinary Sphincter Artificialmedicine.symptombusiness

description

Objective: The aims of the present study were to evaluate the outcome of implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in male patients with iatrogenic urinary incontinence and to analyse possible risk factors for resurgery, with particular focus on the effects of posterior urethral strictures (US). Methods: The outcomes of AUS implantation surgeries performed by 2 surgeons on consecutive patients between January 1999 and 2015 were evaluated retrospectively. Univariate analysis with Cox proportional hazard regression was used to assess correlations between resurgery (explantation or substitution of the urethral cuff) and risk factors. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with AUS survival and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and Kaplan-Meier were constructed. Patients who underwent resurgery for mechanical failure were excluded from the study. Results: In all, 73 male patients were monitored for a maximum of 190months (median follow-up duration 36months). The risk of resurgery was 3.75-fold greater in patients with than without stenosis (HR 3.75; 95% CI 1.47-9.59). In addition, Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed a significantly shorter AUS survival time in patients with than without stenosis treatment. Conclusions: Prior treatment for US increases the relative risk of AUS failure. Despite not being an absolute contraindication for AUS implantation, we suggest that patients with previous treatment for US are informed of potential risks.

10.1111/luts.12205http://hdl.handle.net/10447/352446