Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Behandlung der männlichen Harninkontinenz

Artifizieller Sphinkter vs. Schlingensysteme

Therapy of male urinary incontinence

Artificial sphincter versus male slings

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Urologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten 10 Jahren kamen unterschiedliche Schlingensysteme zur Therapie der männlichen Harninkontinenz zum Einsatz. Allen gemein ist die Kompression der Urethra zur Reduktion der Harninkontinenz. Zusätzlich wird zumindest von einem Schlingentyp eine Repositionierung und Stabilisierung des Beckenbodens als Wirkprinzip reklamiert. Es gibt adjustierbare und nicht-adjustierbare Systeme. Die Implantation zeichnet sich durch geringe Invasivität aus. Diesen gegenüber steht der seit 1972 eingesetzte und weiterentwickelte artifizielle hydraulische AMS800-Sphinkter. Neuerdings ist ein zweiter hydraulischer Sphinkter (FlowSecure) eines anderen Herstellers erhältlich, der unter Belastung eine Verschlussdrucksteigerung bei gleichzeitiger Reduktion des Basisverschlussdruckes der Urethra aufweist. Die Fragestellung bezieht sich auf die Effektivität und die Breite des Einsatzsprektrums der neuen Schlingen im Vergleich zu den artifiziellen Sphinktern.

Abstract

Different kinds of sling systems for the therapy of male urinary incontinence have been developed during the last decade. All systems work by compressing the male urethra. There are adjustable and non-adjustable systems. Implantation is mostly a minimally invasive procedure. On the other hand the well-established AMS 800 hydraulic artificial sphincter has been available since 1972. Recently, another hydraulic artificial sphincter (FlowSecure) has become available providing a boost of occlusive pressure during stress. The aim of this review is to compare effectiveness and indications of the different techniques compared to the artificial sphincter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5
Abb. 6
Abb. 7

Literatur

  1. Anger JT, Saigal CS, Stothers L et al (2006) The prevalence of urinary incontinence among community dwelling men: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey. J Urol 176(5):2103–2108

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bauer RM, Mayer ME, May F et al (2010) Complications of the AdVance transobturator male sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. Urology 75(6):1494–1498

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bauer RM, Soljanik I, Füllhase C et al (2011) Mid-term results for the retroluminar transobturator sling suspension for stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. BJU Int 108(1):94–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bochove-Overgaauw DM, Schrier BP (2011) An adjustable sling for the treatment of all degrees of male stress urinary incontinence: retrospective evaluation of efficacy and complications after a minimal followup of 14 months. J Urol 185(4):1363–1368

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carmel M, Hage B, Hanna S et al (2010) Long-term efficacy of the bone-anchored male sling for moderate and severe stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 106(7):1012–1016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Castle EP, Andrews PE, Itano N et al (2005) The male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: mean followup of 18 months. J Urol 173(5):1657–1660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Comiter CV (2005) The male perineal sling: intermediate-term results. Neurourol Urodyn 24(7):648–653

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cornel EB, Elzevier HW, Putter H (2010) Can advance transobturator sling suspension cure male urinary postoperative stress incontinence? J Urol 183(4):1459–1463

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cornu JN, Sèbe P, Ciofu C et al (2011) Mid-term evaluation of the transobturator male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: focus on prognostic factors. BJU Int 108(2):236–240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Davies TO, Bepple JL, McCammon KA (2009) Urodynamic changes and initial results of the AdVance male sling. Urology 74(2):354–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dikranian AH, Chang JH, Rhee EY, Aboseif SR (2004) The male perineal sling: comparison of sling materials. J Urol 172(2):608–610

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fassi-Fehri H, Badet L, Cherass A et al (2007) Efficacy of the InVance male sling in men with stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol 51(2):498–503

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gallagher BL, Dwyer NT, Gaynor-Krupnick DM et al (2007) Objective and quality-of-life outcomes with bone-anchored male bulbourethral sling. Urology 69(6):1090–1094

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Giberti C, Gallo F, Schenone M et al (2009) The bone anchor suburethral synthetic sling for iatrogenic male incontinence: critical evaluation at a mean 3-year followup. J Urol 181(5):2204–2208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Giberti C, Gallo F, Schenone M, Cortese P (2008) The bone-anchor sub-urethral sling for the treatment of iatrogenic male incontinence: subjective and objective assessment after 41 months of mean follow-up. World J Urol 26(2):173–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gill BC, Swartz MA, Klein JB et al (2010) Patient perceived effectiveness of a new male sling as treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 183(1):247–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Guimarães M, Oliveira R, Pinto R et al (2009) Intermediate-term results, up to 4 years, of a bone-anchored male perineal sling for treating male stress urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. BJU Int 103(4):500–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hübner WA, Gallistl H, Rutkowski M, Huber ER (2011) Adjustable bulbourethral male sling: experience after 101 cases of moderate-to-severe male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 107(5):777–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hübner WA, Schlarp OM (2005) Treatment of incontinence after prostatectomy using a new minimally invasive device: adjustable continence therapy. BJU Int 96(4):587–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S et al (2008) Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol 179(5):1912–1916

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Knight SL, Susser J, Greenwell T, Mundy AR, Craggs MD (2006) A new artificial urinary sphincter with conditional occlusion for stress urinary incontinence: preliminary clinical results. Eur Urol 50(3):574–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kumar A, Litt ER, Ballert KN, Nitti VW (2009) Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence – what do patients choose? J Urol 181(3):1231–1235

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Light JK, Reynolds JC (1992) Impact of the new cuff design on reliability of the AS 800 artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol 147(3):609–611

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Madjar S, Jacoby K, Giberti C et al (2001) Bone anchored sling for the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol 165(1):72–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Navalón Verdejo P, Pallás Costa Y, Ordoño Domínguez F et al (2010) Our experience in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence with the male Remeex system. Arch Esp Urol 63(6):432–439

    Google Scholar 

  26. Onur R, Rajpurkar A, Singla A (2004) New perineal bone-anchored male sling: lessons learned. Urology 64(1):58–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Pérez LM, Webster GD (1992) Successful outcome of artificial urinary sphincters in men with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence despite adverse implantation features. J Urol 148(4):1166–1170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raj GV, Peterson AC, Toh KL, Webster GD (2005) Outcomes following revisions and secondary implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol 173(4):1242–1245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Rehder P, Freiin von Gleissenthall G, Pichler R, Glodny B (2009) The treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence with the retroluminal transobturator repositioning sling (Advance): lessons learnt from accumulative experience. Arch Esp Urol 62(10):860–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rehder P, Gozzi C (2007) Transobturator sling suspension for male urinary incontinence including post-radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 52(3):860–866

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rehder P, Mitterberger MJ, Pichler R et al (2010) The 1 year outcome of the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 106(11):1668–1672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Reynolds WS, Patel R, Msezane L et al (2007) Current use of artificial urinary sphincters in the United States. J Urol 178(2):578–583

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Romano SV, Metrebian SE, Vaz F et al (2009) Long-term results of a phase III multicentre trial of the adjustable male sling for treating urinary incontinence after prostatectomy: minimum 3 years. Actas Urol Esp 33(3):309–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rouprêt M, Misraï V, Gosseine PN et al (2011) Management of stress urinary incontinence following prostate surgery with minimally invasive adjustable continence balloon implants: functional results from a single center prospective study. J Urol 186(1):198–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sénéchal C, Limani K, Djeffal C et al (2008) Perineoscrotal pain after InVance suburethral sling: cadavre anatomical study. Prog Urol 18(7):456–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sousa-Escandón A, Cabrera J, Mantovani F et al (2007) Adjustable suburethral sling (male remeex system) in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: a multicentric European study. Eur Urol 52(5):1473–1479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thüroff JW, Hohenfellner M, Schultz-Lampel D (1992) Die Harninkontinenz des Mannes. Faszienzügelplastik zur Therapie der Streßinkontinenz. Aktuelle Urol 23:149–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ullrich NF, Comiter CV (2004) The male sling for stress urinary incontinence: urodynamic and subjective assessment. J Urol 172(1):204–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Urologische Klinik und Poliklinik, Universitätsmedizin Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55122, Mainz, Deutschland

    W. Leicht & J. Thüroff

Authors
  1. W. Leicht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Thüroff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to W. Leicht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leicht, W., Thüroff, J. Behandlung der männlichen Harninkontinenz. Urologe 51, 341–347 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-2820-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-012-2820-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation