Katie N. Ballert

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Versus Male Sling for Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence—What Do Patients Choose?

PURPOSE Early outcomes of the male sling to correct post-prostatectomy incontinence have been promising in select patients. Long-term data are lacking to determine whether the male sling is as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter, which is the current gold standard. Because the male sling offers the significant advantage of avoiding a mechanical device but without established success, we determined the patient preference for the male sling vs the artificial urinary sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS We reviewed the charts of 133 men with post-prostatectomy incontinence who underwent the first procedure to correct incontinence. After urodynamics the surgeon recommended an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and patients were told the artificial urinary sphincter satisfaction rate and shorter term data on the male sling. Patients with high grade post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight greater than 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter, those with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight 100 to 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and those with mild post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight less than 100 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive a male sling. RESULTS A total of 84 male sling (63%) and 49 artificial urinary sphincter (37%) procedures were performed. The surgeon recommendation was an artificial urinary sphincter in 63 men (47%) and a male sling in 46 (35%). A total of 24 men (18%) were given the option of either procedure. All patients recommended to receive a male sling chose it. When an artificial urinary sphincter was recommended, 75% of patients chose it, while 25% chose a male sling. When given a choice, 92% of patients chose a male sling and 8% chose an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSIONS Most patients adhere to the surgeon recommendation. When men with post-prostatectomy incontinence are offered the choice of an artificial urinary sphincter vs a male sling, the opportunity to avoid using a mechanical device is preferable to undergoing a well established procedure. Men who strongly wish to avoid a mechanical device are willing to go against the surgeon recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter.

Managing the urethra at transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair: a urodynamic approach.

PURPOSE We evaluated the protocol that we use to determine whether a mid urethral synthetic sling will be placed at transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS A total of 140 patients underwent transvaginal repair for stage 2 to 4 pelvic organ prolapse, of whom 105 were treated according to the protocol and had a minimum 3 months of followup or required earlier intervention. Urodynamics were performed without prolapse reduction. When stress urinary incontinence was not identified, a pessary was placed and the study was repeated. Patients were designated as having urodynamic, occult or no stress urinary incontinence. Patients with urodynamic or occult stress urinary incontinence underwent a simultaneous mid urethral synthetic sling procedure, while those without urodynamic or occult stress urinary incontinence did not. Charts were reviewed to determine whether further intervention was required for stress urinary incontinence or obstruction. RESULTS The risk of intervention due to obstruction after receiving a mid urethral synthetic sling was 8.5%. The risk of intervention for stress urinary incontinence in patients with no clinical, urodynamic or occult stress urinary incontinence and no mid urethral synthetic sling was 8.3%. The risk of intervention for stress urinary incontinence in patients with clinical stress urinary incontinence but no urodynamic or occult stress urinary incontinence and no mid urethral sling was 30%. CONCLUSIONS Using our urodynamic protocol to manage the urethra at transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse repair the risk of intervention due to obstruction is essentially equal to the risk of intervention due to stress urinary incontinence when no clinical, urodynamic or occult stress urinary incontinence was present and no mid urethral synthetic sling was placed. In patients who report clinical stress urinary incontinence preoperatively despite no urodynamic or occult stress urinary incontinence there is a much higher rate of further intervention for stress urinary incontinence.

Effect of tension-free vaginal tape and TVT-obturator on lower urinary tract symptoms other than stress urinary incontinence

Variable effects on lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) other than stress urinary incontinence (SUI) have been reported after tension-free vaginal tape (TVT). We measured the effect of TVT on LUTS using the American Urological Association Symptom Index (AUASI). Patients undergoing TVT completed the AUASI pre- and post-operatively. Total scores (TS), storage scores (SS), and voiding scores (VS) were compared overall and among patients with SUI vs mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and those who underwent TVT vs TVT-obturator (TVT-O). The mean change in TS and SS was −3.6 and −3.0. Mean reductions in TS and SS were significant in all patient subsets with no change in VS. There was no significant difference in the mean changes in TS between patients with SUI vs MUI or those undergoing TVT vs TVT-O. LUTS are improved after TVT in most patients. In general, voiding symptoms were not adversely affected.

Fistulization between ectopic ureteral stump and uterus following nephroureterectomy: case report

Ureterouterine fistulas are rare surgical complications with fewer than 30 reported cases in the literature to date. Rarer yet is a fistula between an ectopic ureter and the uterus, with only one case described previously (Shibata et al. in J Urol 153: 1208–1210, 1995). Herein, we present the first case, to our knowledge, of a fistula between an ectopic ureteral stump (from a prior nephroureterectomy) and the uterus.

Complications of male incontinence surgery

Urinary incontinence can result following surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia or prostate cancer and can be associated with significant morbidity and decreased quality of life. The artificial urinary sphincter and male sling are the current surgical treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. Physicians and patients must be fully aware of the potential risks, shared and unique, of each procedure. This article will discuss recognized complications of the artificial urinary sphincter and the male sling with respect to temporal occurrence (intraoperative, early post-operative and delayed/long-term).