Technique of implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter ZSI 375.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ostrowski I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6715092 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Technique of implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter ZSI 375.
Ostrowski Ireneusz I Śledź Emil E Dyś Wojciech W Józefczak Mateusz M Ciechan Janusz J
Central European journal of urology 20190606 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation is an effective treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI). Still, it may result in troublesome complications such as intraoperative urethral lesion and postoperative erosion. Based on the multilayered structure of the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa, we evaluated an alternative transalbugineal surgical technique of AUS cuff placement with the aim to decrease perioperative morbidity while preserving the integrity of the corpora cavernosa. A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary referral center from September 2012 to October 2021, including 47 consecutive patients undergoing AUS (AMS800®) transalbugineal implantation. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 60 (24-84) months, no intraoperative urethral injury and only one noniatrogenic erosion occurred. The actuarial 12 mo and 5 yr overall erosion-free rates were 95.74% (95% CI: 84.04-98.92) and 91.76% (95% CI: 75.23-97.43), respectively. In preoperatively potent patients, the IIEF-5 score remained unchanged. The social continence (0-1 pads per day) rate was 82.98% (CI 95%: 68.83-91.10) at 12 mos and 76.81% (CI 95%: 60.56-87.04) at 5 yrs follow-up. Our technically refined approach to AUS implantation may help to avoid intraoperative urethral lesions and lower the risk of subsequent erosion without compromising sexual function in potent patients. Prospective and adequately powered studies are necessary to achieve more compelling evidence.
| S-EPMC10141998 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo report the first laparoscopic periprostatic implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) after a transurethral resection of the prostate.BackgroundThe implantation of an AUS is a standard procedure for severe urinary incontinence. In men it is usually implanted through a perineal approach, with the cuff placed around the bulbous urethra, bladder neck, or even around the prostate.MethodWe report a laparoscopic periprostatic implantation of an AUS after a transurethral resection of a prostate in a 72-year-old-man with incontinence.ResultsThe operative duration was 180 min and the blood loss was 150 mL. There were no complications. After activating the AUS the patient was totally continent.ConclusionThe laparoscopic periprostatic implantation of an AUS is a safe, effective and considerably less invasive procedure.
| S-EPMC4563016 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo describe a large series of male patients who underwent a minimally invasive single perineal incision artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in patients with stress urinary incontinence.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed with data collected from men undergoing AUS placement by a single high-volume surgeon over a 12-year period (2005 to 2017). Demographic and outcomes data related to AUS placement were recorded from electronic medical records, which included subjective histories and questionnaires. Institutional ethics approval was received.ResultsA total of 145 AUS were placed over the study period. Of these, 84 were performed through a single perineal incision for both device and reservoir placement. Almost all (n=81, 96%) reported pre-operative incontinence of more than 3 pads per day. Postoperatively, 75% were satisfied with their continence, with 21 (25%) complaining of recurrent incontinence. A total of 5 (6%) patients developed a post-operative infection, 10 (12%) had device erosion and 11 (13%) had device malfunction, but only 3 (4%) had reservoir dysfunction. A total of 24 (29%) patients required revision of their device at median of 20 months (IQR, 6-32.5 months).ConclusionsSingle perineal incision is a feasible, safe, and potentially superior approach for AUS placement and warrants consideration as an accepted approach due to its more rapid surgical times, lower morbidity related to a single incision with minimal fascial defect, and favorable complication rates.
| S-EPMC7658167 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6469000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveThe artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is most known for its use in the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. However, another lesser-known indication includes stress incontinence related to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) in the neurogenic bladder population. The purpose of this review is to discuss specific technical considerations related to device implantation in this population, efficacy, durability, and complications.MethodsWe performed a non-systematic literature review using the PubMed Database to identify articles specifically related to treatment of neurogenic urinary incontinence using an artificial urinary sphincter.Key content and findingsMore proximal placement of the cuff at the bladder neck is preferred in the neurogenic population due to higher rates of erosion and complications related to frequent clean intermittent catheterization or cystoscopic procedures when placed along the bulbar urethra. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic cuff placement has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to open surgery in select patients. Although continence rates are highly variable due the subjectivity of the term, functional continence (≤1 pad, ± nighttime incontinence) is reported to be between 75-90%. The need for secondary surgery for explanation with or without revision/replacement is higher in neurogenic patients compared to non-neurogenic patients.ConclusionsNeurogenic urinary incontinence is a complex condition due to the interplay of urethral resistance and bladder function/compliance. While there are a variety of strategies to treat neurogenic incontinence, high quality data from direct comparisons are lacking. Although AUS comes with a high revision rate, functional outcomes for continence with bladder neck placement are promising in this population.
| S-EPMC11399043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The modern AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is often considered the standard of care for the treatment of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence in male patients. Nonetheless, the AMS 800 device has several inherent limitations, and these factors can potentially impact its clinical utility and impede excellent clinical outcomes. The new Rigicon AUS devices such as ContiClassic and ContiReflex urinary sphincters are designed to overcome some of the existing issues pertaining to the AMS 800 device. The ContiClassic device is similar in terms of device design to the AMS 800 apart from the inclusion of a hydrophilic coating, has a greater range of cuff sizes with 0.25-cm diameter increments, and an Easy Clink Connectors which negates the need for an assembly tool. In contrast, The ContiReflex device differs from the ContiClassic model in that it features an extra stress relief balloon (SRB) to provide a safeguard on the urethral occlusive mechanism against any sudden increase in intra-abdominal pressure, and a larger pump system that is responsible to cycle fluid between the higher pressure two-balloon system and the sphincteric cuff. The following brief report evaluates the current device design and technology of the Rigicon ContiClassic and ContiReflex AUS devices.
| S-EPMC11399054 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectiveIn a patient who complains of both stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and erectile dysfunction (ED), prosthetic surgery with a urinary continence device and penile prosthesis implant can offer a definitive solution to address both problems. The AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) device is considered the standard of care to restore SUI while the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device is thought to be superior to a malleable prosthesis to provide a more natural penile erection with higher patient satisfaction rates. The following article explores the current understanding of AMS 800 AUS surgery and IPP device in treating males with concurrent SUI and ED as well as evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed or staged device implantation.MethodsThe available literature on AUS and IPP implantation was reviewed on PubMed and Embase databases between 1 January 2000 and 1 December 2022. This narrative review evaluates relevant key features pertaining to prosthetic surgery with an emphasis on arguments for concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed sequential surgery for AUS and IPP devices. Additionally, this paper provides a brief surgical description of the techniques and potential complications relating to both prosthetic procedures.Key content and findingsWhile a great deal is known about the excellent outcomes of both AUS and IPP implantation, there is limited literature published on the outcomes of dual AUS and IPP surgery. The decision to proceed with concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed sequential two-stage implants is likely determined by the patient's preference, the surgeon's expertise, and the availability of prostheses. In either situation, patients should be counselled regarding the advantages and disadvantages of undergoing synchronous concurrent vs. delayed sequential implants and associated surgical challenges are likely dependent on the patient's anatomy and the surgeon's preference.ConclusionsFor carefully selected patients with SUI and ED, dual implantation of AUS and IPP provides a definitive treatment to address both conditions at the same time. Patients should be counselled regarding the advantages and disadvantages of synchronous concurrent vs. sequentially delayed implants while technical considerations regarding the sequence of prosthetic device surgery are likely dependent on the patient's factors and the surgeon's preference and surgical expertise.
| S-EPMC11399055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Iatrogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is the most common complication of surgical treatment of prostate cancer, regardless of operative approach, and has a major impact on patients' quality of life. Although SUI can occur after surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, specifically transurethral prostate resection, laser enucleation of the prostate, and simple open prostatectomy, these therapeutic modalities play a much less significant role in the etiology of SUI. Artificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation is considered the standard treatment modality providing high success rates, including durable efficacy, and optimal patient satisfaction for moderate to severe urinary incontinence resulting mainly from radical prostatectomy. However, although complication rates are generally acceptably low, revision and/or explantation may be required due to mechanical failure and non-mechanical problems, specifically urethral atrophy/cuff deficient occlusion, infection, and cuff erosion. Several risk factors for AUS failure associated with a fragile, compromised urethra have been identified and these play a critical role in device cuff erosion and subsequent removal of the device. Among others, apparently the most impacting factors are irradiation, urethral stent placement, a previous AUS placement, and importantly presence of urethral stricture or prior urethroplasty. Generally, any clinical situation leading to a diseased urethra or lack of urethral integrity is associated with impaired local blood perfusion, and consequently lower success rates. The present review aims to evaluate the impact of the presence of prior urethral strictures and urethroplasty on the outcomes of AUS implantation on one hand, and vice-versa, the influence of AUS placement on later urethral stricture surgery, particularly following cuff erosion.
| S-EPMC11399027 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has been used to treat post-prostatectomy incontinence in men for decades with excellent outcomes and low complication rates. A successful AUS placement can dramatically improve the quality of life in men with stress urinary incontinence. Consequently, complications in this population can be devastating for the patient. One of the most troublesome complications is cuff erosion, which necessitates explantation of the device and dooms a man to recurrent incontinence. While the device can be replaced, device replacements are fraught with high erosion rates. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for men undergoing AUS placement to have multiple medical comorbidities that make urgent surgery for explantation unideal. Nonetheless, men with cellulitis and significant symptoms must undergo removal of an eroded AUS. There is little to no literature published on the timing or need for device removal in the man who has an asymptomatic erosion.Case descriptionWe report a case series of five men undergoing delayed or no explantation of an asymptomatic cuff erosion. All five men were asymptomatic at the time of presentation and underwent a delayed explant or no explant. No man required urgent device explant while the erosion was present.ConclusionsUrgent device explantation may not be necessary in the asymptomatic AUS cuff erosion, and further study may be able to elucidate men who can avoid removal of cuff erosion when no symptoms are present.
| S-EPMC10251094 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11535740 | biostudies-literature