Outcomes of laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter in women with stress urinary incontinence: mid-term evaluation
- PMID: 33388876
- DOI: 10.1007/s00345-020-03527-y
Outcomes of laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter in women with stress urinary incontinence: mid-term evaluation
Abstract
Purpose: Although artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has become an established treatment for moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI), implantation can be challenging. This study aimed to review the outcomes of laparoscopic AUS (LAUS) implantation and revision in women presenting with SUI.
Methods: We reviewed the files of female patients presenting with moderate to severe SUI treated with LAUS implantation from October 2007 to July 2017. Surgeries were performed by one surgeon experienced in open AUS implantation and starting LAUS implantation. The primary endpoint was postoperative urinary continence, which was divided into three categories: complete continence, improved continence, and unchanged incontinence. The secondary outcomes were complications, explantation-free and revision-free time.
Results: A total of 49 women (mean age 64 years, range 40-80) had LAUS implantation. Among the 42 patients (85.7%) with an AUS in place at the last follow-up, 25 (59.5%) were fully continent, 16 (38.1%) had improved continence, and 1 (2.4%) had unchanged incontinence. At the last follow-up, 29 (59.2%) patients had their initial AUS and 13 (26.5%) had at least one reintervention. There were 9 (18.4%) intraoperative complications and 25 (51%) postoperative complications, of which 9 (18.4%) were Clavien⩾3. After a median follow-up of 4 years, 9 (18.4%) explantations and 11 (22.5%) revisions occurred. The average period without explantation or revision was 3.7 and 3.1 years, respectively.
Conclusion: Our study shows that the laparoscopic approach for AUS implantation is an efficient treatment option for women with moderate to severe SUI.
Keywords: Artificial urinary sphincter; Laparoscopy; Stress urinary incontinence; Women.
© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Comment in
-
Trauma, and Genital and Urethral Reconstruction.J Urol. 2021 Jul;206(1):151-152. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001800. Epub 2021 Apr 20. J Urol. 2021. PMID: 33874727 No abstract available.
References
-
- Hampel C, Artibani W, Espuña Pons M et al (2004) Understanding the burden of stress urinary incontinence in Europe: a qualitative review of the literature. Eur Urol 46:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.02.003 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW (1974) Treatment of urinary incontinence by an implantable prosthetic urinary sphincter. J Urol 112:75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)59647-0 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Lucas MG, Bosch RJL, Burkhard FC et al (2012) EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 62:1118–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.09.023 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Dmochowski RR, Blaivas JM, Gormley EA et al (2010) Update of AUA guideline on the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 183:1906–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.02.2369 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Mandron E, Bryckaert P-E, Papatsoris AG (2010) Laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter implantation for female genuine stress urinary incontinence: technique and 4-year experience in 25 patients. BJU Int 106:1194–1198. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09206.x (discussion 1198) - DOI - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
