Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient: Safety, efficacy and satisfaction

I. K. Walsh, S. G. Williams, V. Mahendra, T. Nambirajan, Anthony R Stone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

91 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy, with and with no history of previous irradiation. Patients and methods: The study included 98 men (mean age 68 years) with urinary incontinence after prostatectomy for prostate cancer (85 radical, 13 transurethral resection) who had an AUS implanted. Twenty-two of the patients had received adjuvant external beam irradiation before AUS implantation. Over a mean (range) follow-up of 46 (5-118) months, the complication and surgical revision rates were recorded and compared between irradiated and unirradiated patients. The two groups were also compared for the resolution of incontinence and satisfaction, assessed using a questionnaire. Results: Overall, surgical revision was equally common in irradiated (36%) and unirradiated (24%) patients. After activating the AUS, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion requiring surgical revision were more common in irradiated patients (41% vs 11%; P < 0.05); 70% of patients reported a significant improvement in continence, regardless of previous irradiation. Patient satisfaction remained high, with > 80% of patients stating that they would undergo surgery again and/or recommend it to others, despite previous irradiation and/or the need for surgical revision. Conclusions: Despite higher complication and surgical revision rates in patients who have an AUS implanted and have a history of previous irradiation, the long-term continence and patient satisfaction appear not to be adversely affected.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)364-368
Number of pages5
JournalBJU International
Volume89
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2002

Fingerprint

Artificial Urinary Sphincter
Patient Safety
Patient Satisfaction
Reoperation
Prostatectomy
Urinary Incontinence
Atrophy
Prostatic Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Artificial urinary sphincter
  • Outcome
  • Prostatectomy
  • Radiotherapy
  • Urinary incontinence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient : Safety, efficacy and satisfaction. / Walsh, I. K.; Williams, S. G.; Mahendra, V.; Nambirajan, T.; Stone, Anthony R.

In: BJU International, Vol. 89, No. 4, 2002, p. 364-368.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Walsh, I. K. ; Williams, S. G. ; Mahendra, V. ; Nambirajan, T. ; Stone, Anthony R. / Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient : Safety, efficacy and satisfaction. In: BJU International. 2002 ; Vol. 89, No. 4. pp. 364-368.
@article{31137544da5e4261ba135dfb10436dfd,
title = "Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient: Safety, efficacy and satisfaction",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy, with and with no history of previous irradiation. Patients and methods: The study included 98 men (mean age 68 years) with urinary incontinence after prostatectomy for prostate cancer (85 radical, 13 transurethral resection) who had an AUS implanted. Twenty-two of the patients had received adjuvant external beam irradiation before AUS implantation. Over a mean (range) follow-up of 46 (5-118) months, the complication and surgical revision rates were recorded and compared between irradiated and unirradiated patients. The two groups were also compared for the resolution of incontinence and satisfaction, assessed using a questionnaire. Results: Overall, surgical revision was equally common in irradiated (36{\%}) and unirradiated (24{\%}) patients. After activating the AUS, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion requiring surgical revision were more common in irradiated patients (41{\%} vs 11{\%}; P < 0.05); 70{\%} of patients reported a significant improvement in continence, regardless of previous irradiation. Patient satisfaction remained high, with > 80{\%} of patients stating that they would undergo surgery again and/or recommend it to others, despite previous irradiation and/or the need for surgical revision. Conclusions: Despite higher complication and surgical revision rates in patients who have an AUS implanted and have a history of previous irradiation, the long-term continence and patient satisfaction appear not to be adversely affected.",
keywords = "Artificial urinary sphincter, Outcome, Prostatectomy, Radiotherapy, Urinary incontinence",
author = "Walsh, {I. K.} and Williams, {S. G.} and V. Mahendra and T. Nambirajan and Stone, {Anthony R}",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01759.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "89",
pages = "364--368",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patient

T2 - Safety, efficacy and satisfaction

AU - Walsh, I. K.

AU - Williams, S. G.

AU - Mahendra, V.

AU - Nambirajan, T.

AU - Stone, Anthony R

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Objective: To compare the long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy, with and with no history of previous irradiation. Patients and methods: The study included 98 men (mean age 68 years) with urinary incontinence after prostatectomy for prostate cancer (85 radical, 13 transurethral resection) who had an AUS implanted. Twenty-two of the patients had received adjuvant external beam irradiation before AUS implantation. Over a mean (range) follow-up of 46 (5-118) months, the complication and surgical revision rates were recorded and compared between irradiated and unirradiated patients. The two groups were also compared for the resolution of incontinence and satisfaction, assessed using a questionnaire. Results: Overall, surgical revision was equally common in irradiated (36%) and unirradiated (24%) patients. After activating the AUS, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion requiring surgical revision were more common in irradiated patients (41% vs 11%; P < 0.05); 70% of patients reported a significant improvement in continence, regardless of previous irradiation. Patient satisfaction remained high, with > 80% of patients stating that they would undergo surgery again and/or recommend it to others, despite previous irradiation and/or the need for surgical revision. Conclusions: Despite higher complication and surgical revision rates in patients who have an AUS implanted and have a history of previous irradiation, the long-term continence and patient satisfaction appear not to be adversely affected.

AB - Objective: To compare the long-term outcome of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy, with and with no history of previous irradiation. Patients and methods: The study included 98 men (mean age 68 years) with urinary incontinence after prostatectomy for prostate cancer (85 radical, 13 transurethral resection) who had an AUS implanted. Twenty-two of the patients had received adjuvant external beam irradiation before AUS implantation. Over a mean (range) follow-up of 46 (5-118) months, the complication and surgical revision rates were recorded and compared between irradiated and unirradiated patients. The two groups were also compared for the resolution of incontinence and satisfaction, assessed using a questionnaire. Results: Overall, surgical revision was equally common in irradiated (36%) and unirradiated (24%) patients. After activating the AUS, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion requiring surgical revision were more common in irradiated patients (41% vs 11%; P < 0.05); 70% of patients reported a significant improvement in continence, regardless of previous irradiation. Patient satisfaction remained high, with > 80% of patients stating that they would undergo surgery again and/or recommend it to others, despite previous irradiation and/or the need for surgical revision. Conclusions: Despite higher complication and surgical revision rates in patients who have an AUS implanted and have a history of previous irradiation, the long-term continence and patient satisfaction appear not to be adversely affected.

KW - Artificial urinary sphincter

KW - Outcome

KW - Prostatectomy

KW - Radiotherapy

KW - Urinary incontinence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036231322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036231322&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01759.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1464-4096.2001.01759.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 11872025

AN - SCOPUS:0036231322

VL - 89

SP - 364

EP - 368

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 4

ER -