Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 11, 2025

Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy
Published on: June 16, 2022
Characterizing patient experiences with repeat artificial urinary sphincter revisions through quantitative surveys
Phillip J Huffman1, Gabriella Ewachiw2, Ryan Johnson2
1The Brady Urological Institute at JHBMC, 4940 Eastern Avenue, 301 Building, Suite 3100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.
Background:
Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement remains the gold-standard treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), despite their need for periodic surgical revision.
Objective:
To understand the experiences of patients who undergo repeat AUS revisions.
Design:
Mixed design including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews for thematic analysis.
Methods:
Men with ⩾2 revisions were collected from a single-institution, retrospective database of AUS patients. Participants were interviewed about their prostatectomy, incontinence, AUS placement, and revisions. A survey was administered utilizing validated tools (e.g., Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7) for quantitative analysis. Interview transcripts were used for qualitative thematic analysis.
Results:
Of 26 respondents, 20 completed the interview. Twenty-three men completed the survey. The mean DRS score for prostatectomy was 24 (standard deviation (SD) = 27), indicating low regret. Median Incontinence Impact Questionnaire score was 54 (SD = 27), with 70% of participants describing their PPUI as "severe." Participants experienced a significant decrease in daily pad usage with AUS placement (5.5 pre-AUS vs 1.4 post-AUS, p < 0.0001). Qualitative analysis revealed themes involving prostatectomy urgency, physician-patient relationships, expectation setting, and quality of follow-up. Most participants (96%) were satisfied with their initial AUS placement and endorsed a positive relationship with their urologist. However, 22% of participants were unaware of device limitations, including the need for revision. Some participants (26%) were uncertain of the status of their AUS, while some participants (35%) desired improved follow-up.
Conclusions:
Initial improvement and positive experiences with urologists motivate patients to undergo AUS repeat revision. Urologists should emphasize the limitations of the AUS before placement and follow up with patients to evaluate their needs for future care.
More Related Videos
10:07Cystometric and External Urethral Sphincter Measurements in Awake Rats with Implanted Catheter and Electrodes Allowing for Repeated Measurements
Published on: January 30, 2018
10:19Evaluation of Biomaterials for Bladder Augmentation using Cystometric Analyses in Various Rodent Models
Published on: August 9, 2012
Related Concept Videos
Nursing Assessment of the Genitourinary System I: Health History
Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System I: Subjective Data
Health History
The initial step in assessing the GI system is obtaining a comprehensive health history. This includes inquiring about the patient's history or presence of problems...
Imaging Studies II: Ultrasonography
Assessment of the Gastrointestinal System II: Health Perception Pattern
Health Perception Patterns
Health perception patterns offer valuable insights into a patient's lifestyle habits and how they may impact their GI health. These patterns include: