[Artificial sphincter in severe urinary incontinence: 9 years of experience]

Abstract

Objective: To present the results achieved with the artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of 44 patients with severe urinary incontinence.

Methods: From April 1990 to December 1998, an artificial urinary sphincter was implanted in 44 patients with severe urinary incontinence, aged 21 to 82 years (mean 56). These patients were categorized into the following groups: Group A comprised 24 males, aged 37 to 82 years (mean 66), who had undergone previous prostatic procedures. Four of them had undergone radical retropubic prostatectomy. The remaining 20 had undergone a total of 34 de-obstructive procedures (mean 1.7 procedures/patient; range 1-3); 28 were endoscopic procedures and 6 open prostatectomy. One of them had a previous ileocystoplasty due to severely low compliance. Ten were completely incontinent and were using a condom catheter (7), penile clamp (2) or permanent indwelling Foley catheter (1). The rest used a mean of 3.7 pads per day. Group B comprised 11 males with a complex urologic history: 9 had neurogenic dysfunction, 1 had bladder exstrophy and 1 had a previous cystectomy and Studer neobladder. Eight were using a condom catheter. The cuff was placed in the bulbar urethra in 8 (4-4.5 cm) and in the bladder neck in 4 (9-10 cm). Group C comprised 9 women with type III stress incontinence after failed previous interventions (range 1-4, mean 2.7). All of these patients required at least 3 pads per day (mean 4.5). The cuff was placed in the bladder neck with diameters ranging from 5 to 10 cm.

Results: The mean follow-up was 28.5 months (range 8-96). One patient died two years after implantation of the artificial sphincter which was never activated. In group A, 83% are socially continent and 17 do not require pads. Three of the 20 patients with the artificial sphincter have undergone a total of 4 surgical revisions. In group B, the social continence rate was 63% with a 36% revision rate. Four patients required a complete change of the system. In group C, The continence rate with revision was 66%. One patient underwent two successive successful revisions and 3 required removal of the device, accounting for a failure rate of 33%. Definitive removal of the artificial sphincter was required in 3 females and 5 males. Aside from one male who refused a new implant, the rest were considered unsuitable for a new device. Six patients underwent at least one reoperation to change one or more parts of the system. Continence was recovered in 66% after the revision.

Conclusions: The artificial urinary sphincter achieves a good continence rate in patients with severe incontinence, although careful patient follow-up is required.