Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 6, 2026
Vessel-sparing Excision and Primary Anastomosis
Published on: January 7, 2019
Primary and revision artificial urinary sphincter for stress urinary incontinence post-radical prostatectomy: a
Ingunn Roth1, Karin Margrethe Hjelle1, Charlotte Josefine Johansen2
1Department of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
Objectives:
To evaluate the efficacy of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with stress urinary incontinence post-radical prostatectomy and the complication burden with a focus on identifying potential risk factors for reoperation as well as determining the fate of revision surgeries.
Methods:
Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients undergoing primary AUS (pAUS) and revision AUS (rAUS) implantation at a tertiary centre. Logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for reoperation associated with non-mechanical failures. Kaplan Meier method was applied to generate implant patency curves.
Results:
Over 11-years, 108 and 28 patients underwent pAUS and rAUS, respectively. Amongst the former group, a 30-day complication rate of 20.4% was found with a complete (zero pad) dryness rate at follow-up of 49.1%. Post-operative infection was the commonest occurring complication in 7.4%. After pAUS, 27.8% underwent reoperation with cuff erosion being the top indication in 46.7%. Diabetes was a significant predictor for reoperation with an associated 3.6-fold increased risk. The 3-year and 5-year device survival rates without reoperation for pAUS were 80% and 76%, respectively. For rAUS, complete dryness rates achieved were lower at 32.1%. The rate of reoperation was higher at 42.9% with a significantly worse survival probability compared to pAUS (p = 0.024).
Conclusions:
Whilst men may achieve complete dryness after pAUS, the potential complication burden and risk of reoperation are not low, and patients need to be counselled regarding this. Chances of continence success are lower when revision surgery is performed with a worse implant survival probability.
