Presenting signs and symptoms of artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion
- PMID: 35503704
- PMCID: PMC9306375
- DOI: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2022.0089
Presenting signs and symptoms of artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize the most common presentation and clinical risk factors for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuff erosion to distinguish the relative frequency of symptoms that should trigger further evaluation in these patients.
Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed our tertiary center database to identify men who presented with AUS cuff erosion between 2007 - 2020. A similar cohort of men who underwent AUS placement without erosion were randomly selected from the same database for symptom comparison. Risk factors for cuff erosion - pelvic radiation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), high-grade prostate cancer (Gleason score ≥ 8) - were recorded for each patient. Presenting signs and symptoms of cuff erosion were grouped into three categories: obstructive symptoms, worsening incontinence, and localized scrotal inflammation (SI).
Results: Of 893 men who underwent AUS placement during the study interval, 61 (6.8%) sustained cuff erosion. Most erosion patients (40/61, 66%) presented with scrotal inflammatory changes including tenderness, erythema, and swelling. Fewer men reported obstructive symptoms (26/61, 43%) and worsening incontinence (21/61, 34%). Men with SI or obstructive symptoms presented significantly earlier than those with worsening incontinence (SI 14 ± 18 vs. obstructive symptoms 15 ± 16 vs. incontinence 37 ± 48 months after AUS insertion, p<0.01). Relative to the non-erosion control group (n=61), men who suffered erosion had a higher prevalence of pelvic radiation (71 vs. 49%, p=0.02).
Conclusion: AUS cuff erosion most commonly presents as SI symptoms. Obstructive voiding symptoms and worsening incontinence are also common. Any of these symptoms should prompt further investigation of cuff erosion.
Keywords: Male; Urinary Incontinence; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial.
Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.
Conflict of interest statement
None declared.
Figures
Comment in
-
Impact of artificial urinary sphincter erosion in the reimplantation of the device.Int Braz J Urol. 2022 Jul-Aug;48(4):686-687. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2022.0089.1. Int Braz J Urol. 2022. PMID: 35594324 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
-
- Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN; Young Academic Urologists Functional Urology Group. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013;63:681-9. - PubMed
-
- Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term Outcomes Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: An Analysis of 1082 Cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology. 2015;86:602-7. - PubMed
-
- Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM. Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol. 2008;179:1912-6. - PubMed
-
- Singla N, Singla AK. Review of single-surgeon 10-year experience with artificial urinary sphincter with report of sterile cuff erosion managed nonsurgically. Urology. 2015;85:252-6. - PubMed
-
- Radomski SB, Ruzhynsky V, Wallis CJD, Herschorn S. Complications and Interventions in Patients with an Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Long-Term Results. J Urol. 2018;200:1093-8. - PubMed
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical