Vol. 43 (2): 264-270, March – April, 2017
Brian J. Linder 1, Boyd R. Viers 1, Matthew J. Ziegelmann 1, Marcelino E. Rivera 1, Daniel S. Elliott 1
1 Department of Urology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
Objective: To compare outcomes for single urethral cuff downsizing versus tandem cuff placement during artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) revision for urethral atrophy.
Materials and Methods: We identified 1778 AUS surgeries performed at our institution from 1990-2014. Of these, 406 were first AUS revisions, including 69 revisions for urethral atrophy. Multiple clinical and surgical variables were evaluated for potential association with device outcomes following revision, including surgical revision strategy (downsizing a single urethral cuff versus placing tandem urethral cuffs).
Results: Of the 69 revision surgeries for urethral atrophy at our institution, 56 (82%) were tandem cuff placements, 12 (18%) were single cuff downsizings and one was relocation of a single cuff. When comparing tandem cuff placements and single cuff downsizings, the cohorts were similar with regard to age (p=0.98), body-mass index (p=0.95), prior pelvic radiation exposure (p=0.73) and length of follow-up (p=0.12). Notably, there was no difference in 3-year overall device survival compared between single cuff and tandem cuff revisions (60% versus 76%, p=0.94). Likewise, no significant difference was identified for tandem cuff placement (ref. single cuff) when evaluating the risk of any tertiary surgery (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-4.12, p=0.94) or urethral erosion/device infection following revision (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.20-5.22, p=0.77).
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in overall device survival in patients undergoing single cuff downsizing or tandem cuff placement during AUS revision for urethral atrophy.
Keywords: Urinary Sphincter, Artificial; Urinary Incontinence; Male