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
. 2022 Nov;41(8):1764-1769.
doi: 10.1002/nau.25019. Epub 2022 Aug 16.

Artificial urinary sphincter cuffs and safe instrument/catheter passage guidelines

Samuel Otis-Chapados  1 , Justin Kim  1 , Sidney B Radomski  1
Affiliations

Artificial urinary sphincter cuffs and safe instrument/catheter passage guidelines

Samuel Otis-Chapados et al. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022 Nov.

Abstract

Purpose: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for males with urinary incontinence. It is generally a safe procedure with a high degree of satisfaction. However, there is a lifelong risk of infection and erosion. AUS cuffs are commonly placed around the bulbar urethral area. There is always a risk of trauma and erosion of cuffs with catheterization or endoscopy. At this time, there is little guidance as to which size catheters or scopes can pass through each AUS cuff sizes safely. The goal of this study was to determine which size of catheters/scopes can pass through different cuff sizes safely in an ex vivo setting.

Method: All AUS cuff sizes available (3.5 cm up to 6.0 cm), catheter sizes between 12 and 22 Fr, and scope sizes 19 Fr flexible/rigid, 21-26 Fr rigid scopes were examined. We used deflated assembled cuffs on the bench (ex vivo) and three different blind observers to measure the free space left between the wall of the cuff and the catheter/scope to be sure that there was consistency. We created a scale from 1 to 3 to determine the ease of passage for each catheter/scope. We also had an MRI radiologist examine bulbar urethra thickness in 20 male patients to determine the average thickness without the bulbospongiosus muscle. Using our average bulbar urethral thickness, we were able to estimate how much free space remained within the urethral lumen and how easy and safe it was to pass each catheter/scope.

Results: For 3.5 cm cuffs, 12 Fr catheters pass easily and safely, 14-16 Fr catheters and 19 Fr flexible/rigid scopes can pass through with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through without a significant risk of trauma. For 4.0 cm cuffs, 12-14 Fr catheters pass easily and safely. 16-18 Fr catheters and 19-21 Fr rigid/flexible scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through safely. For 4.5 cm cuffs, 12-18 Fr catheters and 19 Fr flexible/rigid scopes pass easily and safely. 20-22 Fr catheters and 21 Fr rigid scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. Larger catheter/scope sizes cannot pass through safely. For 5.0 cm cuffs, 12-22 Fr catheters and 19-21 Fr flexible/rigid scopes can pass easily and safely. 22-26 Fr scopes can pass with some mild risk of trauma. For 5.5 cm cuffs, all catheters/scopes can pass easily and safely. However, the 26 Fr rigid scope can pass with some mild risk of trauma. For 6 cm cuffs, all catheters/scopes examined can pass easily and safely.

Conclusion: Our study can guide urologists in the management of patients with an AUS who need urethral catheters or endoscopy. These recommendations are based on the measurements of our study along with bulbar urethral thickness. In general, greater caution is needed with smaller cuff sizes (3.5-4.5 cm). Our recommendations, with minimal urethral compression, are purposely conservative and safe to avoid trauma and erosion of the AUS cuffs.

Keywords: artificial urinary sphincter (AUS); catheters; cuffs; erosion; instruments.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29:4-20.
    1. Das AK, Kucherov V, Glick L, Chung P. Male urinary incontinence after prostate disease treatment. Can J Urol. 2020;27(Suppl 3):36-43.
    1. Chen J, Oromendia C, Halpern JA, Ballman KV. National trends in management of localized prostate cancer: a population-based analysis 2004−2013. Prostate. 2018;78(7):512-520.
    1. Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, et al. Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2019;202(2):369-378.
    1. Heiner SM, Viers BR, Rivera ME, Linder BJ, Elliott DS. What is the fate of artificial urinary sphincters among men undergoing repetitive bladder cancer treatment? Investig Clin Urol. 2018;59(1):44-48.

LinkOut - more resources