Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Evolution and Implementation of New Techniques in the Man with Stress Incontinence After Treatment for Prostate Cancer

  • Cancer-Associated Voiding Dysfunction (A Peterson, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Urinary incontinence is a burdensome sequelae of prostate cancer treatment with a significant impact on quality of life. The artificial urinary sphincter has been the gold standard for management of incontinence. A variety of modifications to the implantation technique to improve continence and minimize infections have been implemented. Herein, we review these changes.

Recent Findings

Post-prostatectomy incontinence requires a detailed evaluation in order to determine the best method of treatment. Despite alternative devices on the market, the success and side effect profile continues to favor the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) for management of most men with post-prostatectomy incontinence. While the overall risk of complications from the AUS is low, recent efforts have focused on measures to reduce infection and erosion rates.

Summary

The AUS is a commonly utilized method to treat post-prostate cancer treatment incontinence. This remains the gold standard for management given its low side effect profile.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of Particular Interest, Published Recently, Have Been Highlighted as: • Of Importance

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(1):7–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeSantis CE, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(4):252–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee R, Te AE, Kaplan SA, Sandhu JS. Temporal trends in adoption of and indications for the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2009;181(6):2622–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harris MJ. Radical perineal prostatectomy: cost efficient, outcome effective, minimally invasive prostate cancer management. Eur Urol. 2003;44(3):303–8. discussion 308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Donovan JL, Hamdy FC, Lane JA, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(15):1425–37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Nam RK, Herschorn S, Loblaw DA, et al. Population based study of long-term rates of surgery for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. J Urol. 2012;188(2):502–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Michaelson MD, Cotter SE, Gargollo PC, Zietman AL, Dahl DM, Smith MR. Management of complications of prostate cancer treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(4):196–213.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lentz AC, Peterson AC, Webster GD. Outcomes following artificial sphincter implantation after prior unsuccessful male sling. J Urol. 2012;187(6):2149–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ajay D, Zhang H, Gupta S, et al. The artificial urinary sphincter is superior to a secondary transobturator male sling in cases of a primary sling failure. J Urol. 2015;194(4):1038–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Foley FE. An artificial sphincter; a new device and operation for control of enuresis and urinary incontinence. J Urol. 1947;58(4):250–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Treatment of urinary incontinence by an implantable prosthetic urinary sphincter. J Urol. 1974;112(1):75–80.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Petrou SP, Elliott DS, Barrett DM. Artificial urethral sphincter for incontinence. Urology. 2000;56(3):353–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dylewski DA, Jamison MG, Borawski KM, Sherman ND, Amundsen CL, Webster GD. A statistical comparison of pad numbers versus pad weights in the quantification of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(1):3–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nitti VW, Mourtzinos A, Brucker BM. Correlation of patient perception of pad use with objective degree of incontinence measured by pad test in men with post-prostatectomy incontinence: the SUFU Pad Test Study. J Urol. 2014;192(3):836–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Collado Serra A, Resel Folkersma L, Dominguez-Escrig JL, Gomez-Ferrer A, Rubio-Briones J, Solsona NE. AdVance/AdVance XP transobturator male slings: preoperative degree of incontinence as predictor of surgical outcome. Urology. 2013;81(5):1034–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fischer MC, Huckabay C, Nitti VW. The male perineal sling: assessment and prediction of outcome. J Urol. 2007;177(4):1414–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gupta S, Peterson AC. Stress urinary incontinence in the prostate cancer survivor. Curr Opin Urol. 2014;24(4):395–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Perez LM, Webster GD. Successful outcome of artificial urinary sphincters in men with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence despite adverse implantation features. J Urol. 1992;148(4):1166–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Thiel DD, Young PR, Broderick GA, et al. Do clinical or urodynamic parameters predict artificial urinary sphincter outcome in post-radical prostatectomy incontinence? Urology. 2007;69(2):315–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Habashy D, Losco G, Tse V, Collins R, Chan L. Mid-term outcomes of a male retro-urethral, transobturator synthetic sling for treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence: impact of radiotherapy and storage dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016.

  21. Lai HH, Hsu EI, Boone TB. Urodynamic testing in evaluation of postradical prostatectomy incontinence before artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Urology. 2009;73(6):1264–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Barnard J, van Rij S, Westenberg AM. A Valsalva leak-point pressure of >100 cmH2O is associated with greater success in AdVance sling placement for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2014;114(Suppl 1):34–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ajay D, Potts, B, Peterson, A. Poster #83. Valsalva Leak-Point Pressure (VLPP) greater than 70 cm H2O is an indicator for sling success: a success prediction model for the maile transobturator sling. 81st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Section of the AUA. Austin; 2017.

  24. Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes among primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter implantations in men with stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2016a;196(3):838–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kahlon B, Baverstock RJ, Carlson KV. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter. Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada. 2011;5(4):268–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Petero Jr VG, Diokno AC. Comparison of the long-term outcomes between incontinent men and women treated with artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2006;175(2):605–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Montague DK. The artificial urinary sphincter (AS 800): experience in 166 consecutive patients. J Urol. 1992;147(2):380–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Raj GV, Peterson AC, Webster GD. Outcomes following erosions of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2006;175(6):2186–90. discussion 2190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Magera Jr JS, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter infection: causative organisms in a contemporary series. J Urol. 2008;180(6):2475–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Darouiche RO. Device-associated infections: a macroproblem that starts with microadherence. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;33(9):1567–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vinh DC, Embil JM. Device-related infections: a review. J Long-Term Eff Med Implants. 2005;15(5):467–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Darouiche RO, Wall Jr MJ, Itani KM, et al. Chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for surgical-site antisepsis. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(1):18–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Saltzman MD, Nuber GW, Gryzlo SM, Marecek GS, Koh JL. Efficacy of surgical preparation solutions in shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(8):1949–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. • Yeung LL, Grewal S, Bullock A, Lai HH, Brandes SB. A comparison of chlorhexidine-alcohol versus povidone-iodine for eliminating skin flora before genitourinary prosthetic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2013;189(1):136–40. Skin cultures obtained before and after preparation demonstrate superiority of the chlorhexidine-alcohol scrub in eradicating skin flora without increased urethral or genital skin irritation. This is now the preferred preoperative scrub solution for genitourinary prosthetic surgery

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Mansouri MD, Boone TB, Darouiche RO. Comparative assessment of antimicrobial activities of antibiotic-treated penile prostheses. Eur Urol. 2009;56(6):1039–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. McKim SE, Carson III. CC. AMS 700 inflatable penile prosthesis with InhibiZone. Expert Rev. Med Dev Dent. 2010;7(3):311–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. de Cogain MR, Elliott DS. The impact of an antibiotic coating on the artificial urinary sphincter infection rate. J Urol. 2013;190(1):113–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Husch T, Kretschmer A, Thomsen F, et al. Antibiotic coating of the artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800(R)): is it worthwhile? Urology. 2017.

  39. Wilson S, Delk 2nd J, Henry GD, Siegel AL. New surgical technique for sphincter urinary control system using upper transverse scrotal incision. J Urol. 2003;169(1):261–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Henry GD, Graham SM, Cornell RJ, et al. A multicenter study on the perineal versus penoscrotal approach for implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: cuff size and control of male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2404–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Brito CG, Mulcahy JJ, Mitchell ME, Adams MC. Use of a double cuff AMS800 urinary sphincter for severe stress incontinence. J Urol. 1993;149(2):283–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Hudak SJ, Morey AF. Impact of 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff on primary and revision surgery for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2011;186(5):1962–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. • Simhan J, Morey AF, Singla N, et al. 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion occurs predominantly in irradiated patients. J Urol. 2015;193(2):593–7. There has been conflicting data from multiple studies regarding the erosion rates of the newer 3.5-cm AUS cuffs. In this cohort of patients, cuff erosion with the 3.5-cm cuff was seen primarily in radiated men. The 3.5-cm cuff offers the surgeon more options for revision surgery and smaller urethral size, though in a radiated patient, a different technique (such as transcorporal cuff placement) may be preferred

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rothschild J, Chang Kit L, Seltz L, et al. Difference between urethral circumference and artificial urinary sphincter cuff size, and its effect on postoperative incontinence. J Urol. 2014;191(1):138–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Peterson AC, Webster GD. Artificial urinary sphincter: lessons learned. Urol Clin North Am. 2011;38(1):83–8. vii

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Stember DS, Garber BB, Perito PE. Outcomes of abdominal wall reservoir placement in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation: a safe and efficacious alternative to the space of Retzius. J Sex Med. 2014;11(2):605–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. • Morey AF, Cefalu CA, Hudak SJ. High submuscular placement of urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs via transscrotal approach. J Sex Med. 2013;10(2):603–10. The pressure regulating balloon is ideally inserted in the space of Retzius, although this space may be difficult to develop in patients with hostile pelvic anatomy. Some surgeons elect an ectopic location for the PRB, such as the high submuscular placement. In a subsequent study, functional outcomes were similar between AUS patients who had traditional versus submuscular PRB placement which makes this technique an attractive option

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Singla N, Siegel JA, Simhan J, et al. Does pressure regulating balloon location make a difference in functional outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter? J Urol. 2015;194(1):202–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sexton S, Madden-Fuentes R, Johnson O, Selph P, Peterson A. Presentation #61. The use of contrast in the artificial urinary sphincter does not increase mechanical failure rate and allows for troubleshooting of a malfunctioning device. 81st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Section of the AUA. Austin; 2017a.

  50. Petrou SP, Williams HJ, Young PR. Radiographic imaging of the artificial urinary sphincter pressure regulating balloon. J Urol. 2001;165(5):1773–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Brucker BM, Demirtas A, Fong E, Kelly C, Nitti VW. Artificial urinary sphincter revision: the role of ultrasound. Urology. 2013;82(6):1424–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Linder BJ, Piotrowski JT, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement. J Urol. 2015;194(3):716–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, et al. The impact of diabetes mellitus and obesity on artificial urinary sphincter outcomes in men. Urology. 2016b;98:176–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Wang R, McGuire EJ, He C, Faerber GJ, Latini JM. Long-term outcomes after primary failures of artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Urology. 2012;79(4):922–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lai HH, Boone TB. Complex artificial urinary sphincter revision and reimplantation cases—how do they fare compared to virgin cases? J Urol. 2012;187(3):951–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rahman NU, Minor TX, Deng D, Lue TF. Combined external urethral bulking and artificial urinary sphincter for urethral atrophy and stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2005;95(6):824–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Brant WO, Erickson BA, Elliott SP, et al. Risk factors for erosion of artificial urinary sphincters: a multicenter prospective study. Urology. 2014;84(4):934–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Seideman CA, Zhao LC, Hudak SJ, Mierzwiak J, Adibi M, Morey AF. Is prolonged catheterization a risk factor for artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion? Urology. 2013;82(4):943–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Wessells HaP AC. Surgical procedures for sphincteric incontinence in the male: the artificial urinary sphincter and perineal sling procedures. In: Wein A, Kavoussi L, Novick A, Partin A, Peters C, editors. Campbell-Walsh urology. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2016. p. 2169–83.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Selph JP, Belsante MJ, Gupta S, et al. The ohmmeter identifies the site of fluid leakage during artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery. J Urol. 2015;194(4):1043–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Saffarian A, Walsh K, Walsh IK, Stone AR. Urethral atrophy after artificial urinary sphincter placement: is cuff downsizing effective? J Urol. 2003;169(2):567–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Sexton S, Madden-Fuentes R, Zaid U, Chang D, Peterson A. Poster #94. Cuff downsizing has good outcomes in the management of urethral subcuff atrophy after artificial urinary sphincter. 81st Annual Meeting of the Southeastern Section of the AUA. Austin; 2017b.

  63. Guralnick ML, Miller E, Toh KL, Webster GD. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy. J Urol. 2002;167(5):2075–8. discussion 2079

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wiedemann L, Cornu JN, Haab E, et al. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter implantation as a salvage surgical procedure for challenging cases of male stress urinary incontinence: surgical technique and functional outcomes in a contemporary series. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1163–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Silva LA, Andriolo RB, Atallah AN, da Silva EM. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;(9):Cd008306.

  66. Chung E, Ranaweera M, Cartmill R. Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device. BJU Int. 2012;110(Suppl 4):5–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Knight SL, Susser J, Greenwell T, Mundy AR, Craggs MD. A new artificial urinary sphincter with conditional occlusion for stress urinary incontinence: preliminary clinical results. Eur Urol. 2006;50(3):574–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Staerman F, G-Llorens C, Leon P, Leclerc Y. ZSI 375 artificial urinary sphincter for male urinary incontinence: a preliminary study. BJU Int. 2013;111(4 Pt B):E202–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Chung E. A state-of-the-art review on the evolution of urinary sphincter devices for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: past, present and future innovations. J Med Eng Technol. 2014;38(6):328–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, Duke University Medical Center, P.O. Box 3146, Durham, NC, 27710, USA

    Stephanie J. Sexton, Andrew C. Peterson & Ramiro J. Madden-Fuentes

Authors
  1. Stephanie J. Sexton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew C. Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ramiro J. Madden-Fuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew C. Peterson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Drs Sexton, Peterson and Madden-Fuentes declare that Boston Scientific supports an educational fellowship grant for the reconstructive urology fellowship program.

Dr. Peterson also reports grants from American medical systems, grants from Coloplast, outside the submitted work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Cancer-Associated Voiding Dysfunction

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sexton, S.J., Peterson, A.C. & Madden-Fuentes, R.J. The Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Evolution and Implementation of New Techniques in the Man with Stress Incontinence After Treatment for Prostate Cancer. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 12, 159–166 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-017-0416-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-017-0416-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation