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
. 2024 Jul 25;5(9):845-850.
doi: 10.1002/bco2.412. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Day-case artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: A comparative pilot study

Konstantinos Kapriniotis  1 , Ioannis Loufopoulos  1 , Richard Nobrega  1 , Anthony Noah  1 , Helena Gresty  1 , Tamsin Greenwell  1 , Jeremy Ockrim  1
Affiliations

Day-case artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: A comparative pilot study

Konstantinos Kapriniotis et al. BJUI Compass. .

Erratum in

  • Erratum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] BJUI Compass. 2024 Dec 30;5(12):1324-1329. doi: 10.1002/bco2.482. eCollection 2024 Dec. BJUI Compass. 2024. PMID: 39744071 Free PMC article.

Abstract

Objectives: Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) to treat post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) has been traditionally offered with an overnight hospital stay. The aim of this prospective, comparative pilot study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of the AUS procedure in a day-case setting.

Patients and methods: We included consecutive patients having primary or redo AUS surgery over an 18-month period. We excluded patients with previous urethral erosion of AUS, urethroplasty or high anaesthetic risk. All patients were offered day-case surgery. Patients who declined or could not have day-case surgery for logistical reasons had standard care with overnight stay and formed the control group for the study. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful same day-discharges in the day-case group. We also compared baseline characteristics, complications and continence at 1 year post surgery.

Results: Twelve patients consented for day-case procedure, and 13 patients had standard overnight care. Mean age was 69.5 years (range 58-79). Twenty-one patients (84%) had primary AUS, whereas 4 (16%) had a redo procedure. There were no significant differences between the groups in baseline demographics. Median number of pads/24 h was 5 in the day-case group and 4 in the overnight group. Eight of 12 patients (66.7%) in the day-case group were successfully discharged on the same day. Failed discharges were due to anaesthetic recovery (n = 2), high post-void residuals that resolved spontaneously (n = 1) and intraoperative superficial urethral injury (n = 1). All patients in the day-case group and all but one in the standard of care group were socially continent (0-1 pads) at 1 year post procedure.

Conclusion: Day-case catheter-free discharge of AUS patients is feasible and safe in selected patients with comparable continence outcomes and complication rates to those with standard overnight stays.

Keywords: artificial urinary sphincter; day‐case; outpatient surgery; post‐prostatectomy incontinence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest or conflicting financial interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lantz A, Bock D, Akre O, Angenete E, Bjartell A, Carlsson S, et al. Functional and oncological outcomes after open versus robot‐assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy for localised prostate cancer: 8‐year follow‐up. Eur Urol. 2021;80(5):650–660. 10.1016/j.eururo.2021.07.025 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cornu J‐N, Ahyai S, Bachmann A, de la Rosette J, Gilling P, Gratzke C, et al. A systematic review and meta‐analysis of functional outcomes and complications following transurethral procedures for lower urinary tract symptoms resulting from benign prostatic obstruction: an update. Eur Urol. 2015;67(6):1066–1096. 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.06.017 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gacci M, Sakalis VI, Karavitakis M, Cornu JN, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on male urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2022;82(4):387–398. 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.012 - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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(4):681–689. 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.034 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Suh YS, Ko KJ, Kim TH, Sung HH, Lee K. Long‐term outcomes of primary implantation and revisions of artificial urinary sphincter in men with stress urinary incontinence. NeurourolUrodyn. 2017;36(7):1930–1937. 10.1002/nau.23221 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources