https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12214

Eighteen years of experience in laparoscopic implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency

Vol. 96 No. 1 (2024)
Published: February 20, 2024
Artificial urinary sphincter, female urinary incontinence, intrinsic sphincter deficiency, laparoscopy
Abstract Views: 359
PDF: 283
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Débora Araújo
deboracerqueiraaraujo@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7144-6726
Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho EPE, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal.
Pierre-Emmanuel Bryckaert
Urology Department, Clinique du Pré, Technopôle Université, Le Mans, France.
Miguel Miranda
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5179-4491
Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte EPE, Lisboa, Portugal.
Vasco Rodrigues
Urology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de São João EPE, Porto, Portugal.
Nicolas de Saint Aubert
Urology Department, Clinique du Pré, Technopôle Université, Le Mans, France.
Johann Menard
Urology Department, Clinique du Pré, Technopôle Université, Le Mans, France.
Eric Mandron
Urology Department, Clinique du Pré, Technopôle Université, Le Mans, France.

Introduction and objectives: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is a treatment option for women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after failure of previous surgery or as a primary procedure in severe intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). The aim of the study was to assess the long-term efficacy and risk factors for surgical revision and definitive explantation of AUS laparoscopic implantation in female patients.
Methods: A retrospective review of all women submitted to AUS implantation between April 2005 and March 2023 was conducted. The AUS was implanted via transperitoneal laparoscopic approach, by two experienced surgeons. The primary endpoint was postoperative continence. Continence was defined as no leakage and no pad usage or leakage and/or pad usage with no impact on social life and failure as leakage and/or pad usage impacting social life. As secondary outcomes, clinical predictive factors for AUS revision and definitive explantation were evaluated.
Results: In the last 18 years, females with a mean age of 68±12 years-old were submitted to laparoscopic implantation of AUS. Early overall complication rate was 16%, but only one case was Clavien-Dindo ≥3. After a median follow-up of 67 months, 22.2% of the patients needed a device revision, the majority due to mechanical device dysfunction. AUS definitive explantation was performed in 16%, mainly due to urethral/vaginal erosion (9.9%) and infection (6.2%). Patients with age ≥70 years and follow-up ≥10 years significantly predisposed for device revision. At the time of the last follow-up, 72% of the patients were keeping the urinary continency.
Conclusions: Laparoscopic AUS implantation in females is an effective treatment for SUI due to ISD. Meanwhile, adequate patient selection, multidisciplinary evaluation and careful expectation management are essential to achieving good results, concerning their significant complication rate.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Hampel C, Artibani W, Espuña Pons M, et al. Understanding the burden of stress urinary incontinence in Europe: A qualitative review of the literature. Eur Urol. 2004; 46:15-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.02.003
Osman NI, Li Marzi V, Cornu JN, Drake MJ. Evaluation and Classification of Stress Urinary Incontinence: Current Concepts and Future Directions. Eur Urol Focus. 2016;2:238-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.05.006
EAU Guidelines. Presented at the EAU Annual Congress Milan 2023. EAU Guidelines Office, Arnhem, the Netherlands.
Abrams P, Andersson KE, Apostolidis A, et al. 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Recommendations of the International Scientific Committee: Evaluation and treatment of urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse and faecal incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018; 37:2271-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23551
Ferreira C, Brychaert PE, Menard J, Mandron E. Laparoscopic implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: Mid-term outcomes. Int J Urol. 2017; 24:308-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13296
Mandron E, Bryckaert PE, Papatsoris AG. Laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter implantation for female genuine stress urinary incontinence: technique and 4-year experience in 25 patients. BJU Int. 2010;106:1194-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09206.x
Rozet F, Mandron E, Arroyo C, et al. Laparoscopic Sacral Colpopexy Approach for Genito-Urinary Prolapse: Experience with Cases. Eur Urol. 2005; 47:230-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2004.08.014
Mandron E, Bryckaert PE. Prolapsus et colpocèle antérieure. Double promontofixation coelioscopique. Technique. Ann Urol (Paris). 2005; 39:247-56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anuro.2005.09.006
Peyronnet B, Greenwell T, Gray G, et al. Current Use of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Adult Females. Curr Urol Rep. 2020;21:53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01001-1
Chartier-Kastler E, Van Kerrebroeck P, Olianas R, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800) implantation for women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: a technique for insiders? BJU Int. 2011;107:1618-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09610.x
Peyronnet B, O’Connor E, Khavari R, et al. AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter in female patients with stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:S28-S41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23833
Reus CR, Phé V, Dechartres A, Grilo NR, et al. Performance and Safety of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AMS 800) for Non neurogenicWomen with Urinary Incontinence Secondary to Intrinsic Sphincter Deficiency: A Systematic Review. Eur Urol Focus. 2020;6:327-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.10.009
Haliloglu B, Karateke A, Coksuer H, et al. The role of urethral hypermobility and intrinsic sphincteric deficiency on the outcome of transobturator tape procedure: a prospective study with 2-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21:173-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1010-y
Lo TS, Pue LB, Tan YL, Wu PY. Risk factors for failure of repeat midurethral sling surgery for recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27:923-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2912-5
Leal Ghezzi T, Campos Corleta O. 30 Years of Robotic Surgery. World J Surg. 2016;40:2550-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3543-9
Costa P, Poinas G, Ben Naoum K, et al. Long-Term Results of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Women with Type III Stress Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013;63:753-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2012.03.008
Peyronnet B, Vincendeau S, Tondut L, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence: preliminary comparison of robot-assisted and open approaches. Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27:475-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2858-7
Gondran-Tellier B, Boissier R, Baboudjian M, et al. Robot-assisted implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter, the AMS-800, via a posterior approach to the bladder neck in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency. BJU Int. 2019;124:1077-80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14884
Peyronnet B, Capon G, Belas O, et al. Robot assisted AMS-800 Artificial Urinary Sphincter Bladder Neck Implantation in Female Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol. 2019; 75:169-75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.036
Chung E, Cartmill RA. 25-year experience in the outcome of artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of female urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2010;106:1664-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09419.x
Chung E, Navaratnam A, Cartmill RA. Can artificial urinary sphincter be an effective salvage option in women following failed anti-incontinence surgery? Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:363-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1268-0
Thomas K, Venn SN, Mundy AR. Outcome of the artificial urinary sphincter in female patients. J Urol. 2002;167:1720-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65185-3
Vayleux B, Rigaud J, Luyckx F, et al. Female urinary incontinence and artificial urinary sphincter: study of efficacy and risk factors forfailure and complications. Eur Urol. 2011;59:1048-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.03.006

How to Cite

Araújo, D., Bryckaert, P.-E., Miranda, M., Rodrigues, V., de Saint Aubert, N., Menard, J., & Mandron, E. (2024). Eighteen years of experience in laparoscopic implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Archivio Italiano Di Urologia E Andrologia, 96(1). https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12214
Copyright (c) 2024 the Author(s) Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.