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
Comparative Study
. 2021 Mar;39(3):871-876.
doi: 10.1007/s00345-020-03244-6. Epub 2020 May 21.

Revisiting the penoscrotal approach to artificial urinary sphincter surgery: how does it compare to a perineal incision for initial implantation?

Christopher J Staniorski  1 , Ashima Singal  2 , Oluwarotimi Nettey  2 , Emily Yura  2 , Mary Kate Keeter  2 , Stephanie Kielb  2 , Matthias D Hofer  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Revisiting the penoscrotal approach to artificial urinary sphincter surgery: how does it compare to a perineal incision for initial implantation?

Christopher J Staniorski et al. World J Urol. 2021 Mar.

Abstract

Purpose: Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) remain the gold standard to treat male stress urinary incontinence. AUS implantation can be performed through a penoscrotal or perineal incision depending on surgeon preference.

Methods: The present study compares initial AUS implantation through two surgical approaches focusing on outcomes of continence and revision. All AUS implanted at an academic medical center between 2000 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results: A total of 225 AUS implantations were identified, of which, 114 patients who underwent virgin AUS placement were included in the study with a mean follow-up of 28.5 months. A total of 68 patients (59.6%) had AUS placement through penoscrotal incision; while, 46 (40.4%) had a perineal incision. While operative time was significantly shorter for penoscrotal placement (98.6 min vs. 136.3 min, p = 0.001), there were no significant differences in continence rates between either surgical approach with 76.5% socially continent defined as using zero to less than 1 pad per day (safety pad). The overall rate of device erosion or infection was not significantly different between groups. However, the rate of revision or replacement was significantly higher in the perineal group (26.1% v. 8.8%; p = 0.01). On multivariate analysis, the penoscrotal incision predicted a lower rate of device revision (p = 0.01).

Conclusions: The penoscrotal approach of AUS placement is associated with shorter operative time. While we observed a lower revision rate compared to the perineal approach, there were equivalent continence outcomes.

Keywords: Artificial urinary sphincter; Prostate cancer; Stress urinary incontinence; Surgical outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME et al (2016) The impact of diabetes mellitus and obesity on artificial urinary sphincter outcomes in men. Urology 98:176–182 - DOI
    1. Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS (2015) Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology 86(3):602–607 - DOI
    1. Lai HH, Hsu EI, Teh BS, Butler EB, Boone TB (2007) 13 years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine. J Urol 177(3):1021–1025 - DOI
    1. Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM (2008) Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol 179(5):1912–1916 - DOI
    1. Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C et al (2019) Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU Guideline. J Urol 202(2):369–378 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources