ObjectiveTo compare complications after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with or without prior radiotherapy (RT).
Patients and MethodsBetween January 2000 and December 2011, 160 patients underwent AMS 800 AUS implantation in our institution. We excluded neurological and traumatic causes, implantation on ileal conduit diversion, penoscrotal urethral cuff position and those lost to follow-up. In all, 122 patients were included in the study, 61 with prior RT and 61 without prior RT. All patients underwent the same surgical technique by two different surgeons. All AUS were implanted with a bulbar urethral cuff position. The mean (range) follow-up was 37.25 (1-126) months.
ResultsIn the patients without prior RT and those with prior RT, revision rates were 32.8% vs 29.5%, respectively (P = 0.59).The median time to first revision was 11.7 months. Early complications were similar in the two groups (4.9% vs 6.5%, P = 1). Erosion rates were not significantly different (4.9% vs 13.1%, P = 0.13). However, infection and explantation were more prevalent in patients with prior RT [two (3.2%) vs 10 (16.3%), P = 0.018 and three (4.9%) vs 12 (19.6%), P = 0.016, respectively]. Finally, continence rates were not significantly different [75.4% (without prior RT) vs 63.9% (with prior RT),
ConclusionAUS is the 'gold standard' treatment of male urinary incontinence after re-education failure in patients with or without prior RT. Our experience showed similar functional outcomes in both groups but a higher rate of major complications in the group with prior RT.
Both HoLEP (100 W) and ThuLEP (110 W) relieve lower urinary tract symptoms in a comparable way with high efficacy and safety, with negligible clinical differences.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.