Background:
Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, and post-prostate treatment incontinence significantly impacts a patient’s quality of life. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for surgical management of moderate to severe urinary incontinence. Despite this, revision and replacement are common. A subset of patients has a high risk for revision and replacement based on certain historical factors. In this article, we review anatomic factors, etiology, and technique modifications through evaluation of relevant data on AUS placement in this patient population.
Materials and Methods:
A literature search was conducted to review recent English-language literature using the key search term “artificial urinary sphincter” along with other search terms including “urethral atrophy,” “urethral erosion,” “radiation,” “urethral stricture,” “urethral surgery,” “vesicourethral anastomotic stenosis,” “vesicourethral anastomotic stricture,” “bladder neck contracture,” and “posterior urethral stenosis.”
Key Findings:
The characteristics of patients with an at-risk or fragile urethra are well known and described in many studies. Primarily, these risks involve changes in urethral blood supply. Various surgical strategies are described for these patients, including transcorporal sphincter cuff placement, changes in cuff size, and potential utilization of tissue transfer or grafting techniques for urethral support.
Conclusion:
The patient group with a fragile urethra remains a management challenge in individuals experiencing post-prostate treatment incontinence. These patients have recognizable anatomic alterations and changes in urethral blood supply. Many strategies are described to help mitigate the increased risk of early device complications and erosion.