Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr;4(1):75-80.

SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE

Affiliations

SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF POST-PROSTATECTOMY INCONTINENCE

Arthi Satyanarayan et al. Eur Med J Urol. 2016 Apr.

Abstract

Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is a common and significant issue that can affect the quality of life in men who are undergoing treatment for prostate cancer. While some patients opt for conservative management of their incontinence, many elect to undergo surgical treatment as a result of the significant impact to quality of life. The most commonly employed surgical techniques to address PPI are placement of a male sling or artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). Currently, the AUS continues to serve as the gold standard for management, with robust data concerning longitudinal outcomes available. However, in recent years, the various methods to place the male sling have emerged as viable, less complex alternatives that avoid the need for pump manipulation. In the present review, we discuss these main surgical treatment modalities for PPI, and focus on the selection criteria that may influence appropriate operative stratification of PPI patients. Indeed, an individualised, comprehensive assessment of baseline urinary function, age, radiation, prior surgeries, functional status, and other comorbidities must be considered in the context of shared decision-making between the treatment provider and the patient in determining the optimal approach to managing PPI.

Keywords: Urinary incontinence; artificial urinary sphincter (AUS); male sling; prostatectomy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

References

    1. Groutz A et al. The pathophysiology of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: a clinical and video urodynamic study. J Urol. 2000;163(6):1767–70. - PubMed
    1. Boorjian SA et al. A critical analysis of the long-term impact of radical prostatectomy on cancer control and function outcomes. Eur Urol. 2012; 61(4):664–75. - PubMed
    1. Crivellaro S et al. Systematic review of surgical treatment of post radical prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015. [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
    1. Tewari AK et al. Functional outcomes following robotic prostatectomy using athermal, traction free risk-stratified grades of nerve sparing. World J Urol. 2013;31(3):471–80. - PubMed
    1. Penson DF et al. 5-year urinary and sexual outcomes after radical prostatectomy: results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. J Urol. 2008; 179(5 Suppl):S40–4. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources