Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Secondary Sling Implantation after Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Study.
Urol Int. 2020; 104(7-8):625-630.UI

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the surgical gold standard after previously failed surgical treatment for male urinary stress incontinence. The evidence for a male sling as salvage treatment is poor, but there is a proportion of patients that refuse implantation of an AUS or have a relative contraindication. The goal of our retrospective study was an analysis of outcome and complications of patients with a secondary sling after previously failed surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on 186 patients who had a prior incontinence surgery were extracted from the DOMINO database. 139 patients (74.7%) received an AUS and 41 patients (22.0%) who had received a secondary sling system between 2010 and 2012 after previously failed surgery for male urinary incontinence could be identified and were further analyzed.

RESULTS

Eight patients (19.5%) received a secondary repositioning sling and 33 patients (80.5%) received a secondary adjustable sling system. A prior surgery for urethral stricture was performed in 4 patients (9.8%). No major intraoperative complications were reported. A simultaneous explantation was performed in 12 patients (29.3%). The mean number of pad reductions was 4.93 (p = 0.026). No intraoperative complications and no postoperative surgical revisions were reported. The mean follow-up of the patient cohort with a secondary sling was 16 months.

CONCLUSION

We provide the largest cohort of male patients up to date with a secondary sling after primary failure of surgery for male SUI. Although the procedure is a rarely performed surgery and without a high level of evidence, a secondary adjustable male sling system might be a feasible option in selected patients with acceptable complication rates, whereas a valuable outcome regarding continence rates cannot be sufficiently supplied by our data.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Urology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, markus.grabbert@uniklinik-freiburg.de.Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany. Promedon GmbH, Kolbermoor, Germany.Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich Grosshadern (LMU), Munich, Germany.Department of Neurourology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.Department of Neurourology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.Department of Urology, Diakonie Hospital Schwäbisch Hall, Schwäbisch Hall, Germany.Department of Urology, Marienhaus Hospital Neuwied, Neuwied, Germany.Department of Urology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.Department of Urology, Westpfalz Hospital Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.Department of Urology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Department of Urology, University Hospital Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.Department of Urology, Diakonie Hospital Schwäbisch Hall, Schwäbisch Hall, Germany.Department of Urology, Korneuburg General Hospital, Korneuburg, Austria.Department of Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.Department of Urology, University Hospital Munich Grosshadern (LMU), Munich, Germany.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32541144

Citation

Grabbert, Markus, et al. "Secondary Sling Implantation After Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: a Retrospective Study." Urologia Internationalis, vol. 104, no. 7-8, 2020, pp. 625-630.
Grabbert M, Hüsch T, Kretschmer A, et al. Secondary Sling Implantation after Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Study. Urol Int. 2020;104(7-8):625-630.
Grabbert, M., Hüsch, T., Kretschmer, A., Kirschner-Hermanns, R., Anding, R., Brehmer, B., Naumann, C. M., Queissert, F., Loertzer, H., Khoder, W., Gratzke, C., Hofmann, T., Huebner, W., Haferkamp, A., & Bauer, R. M. (2020). Secondary Sling Implantation after Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Study. Urologia Internationalis, 104(7-8), 625-630. https://doi.org/10.1159/000508585
Grabbert M, et al. Secondary Sling Implantation After Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: a Retrospective Study. Urol Int. 2020;104(7-8):625-630. PubMed PMID: 32541144.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Secondary Sling Implantation after Failure of Primary Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Retrospective Study. AU - Grabbert,Markus, AU - Hüsch,Tanja, AU - Kretschmer,Alexander, AU - Kirschner-Hermanns,Ruth, AU - Anding,Ralf, AU - Brehmer,Bernhard, AU - Naumann,Carsten Maik, AU - Queissert,Fabian, AU - Loertzer,Hagen, AU - Khoder,Wael, AU - Gratzke,Christian, AU - Hofmann,Torben, AU - Huebner,Wilhelm, AU - Haferkamp,Axel, AU - Bauer,Ricarda M, Y1 - 2020/06/15/ PY - 2020/04/10/received PY - 2020/05/10/accepted PY - 2020/6/17/pubmed PY - 2020/6/17/medline PY - 2020/6/17/entrez KW - Male slings KW - Salvage surgery KW - Urinary incontinence SP - 625 EP - 630 JF - Urologia internationalis JO - Urol. Int. VL - 104 IS - 7-8 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the surgical gold standard after previously failed surgical treatment for male urinary stress incontinence. The evidence for a male sling as salvage treatment is poor, but there is a proportion of patients that refuse implantation of an AUS or have a relative contraindication. The goal of our retrospective study was an analysis of outcome and complications of patients with a secondary sling after previously failed surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data on 186 patients who had a prior incontinence surgery were extracted from the DOMINO database. 139 patients (74.7%) received an AUS and 41 patients (22.0%) who had received a secondary sling system between 2010 and 2012 after previously failed surgery for male urinary incontinence could be identified and were further analyzed. RESULTS: Eight patients (19.5%) received a secondary repositioning sling and 33 patients (80.5%) received a secondary adjustable sling system. A prior surgery for urethral stricture was performed in 4 patients (9.8%). No major intraoperative complications were reported. A simultaneous explantation was performed in 12 patients (29.3%). The mean number of pad reductions was 4.93 (p = 0.026). No intraoperative complications and no postoperative surgical revisions were reported. The mean follow-up of the patient cohort with a secondary sling was 16 months. CONCLUSION: We provide the largest cohort of male patients up to date with a secondary sling after primary failure of surgery for male SUI. Although the procedure is a rarely performed surgery and without a high level of evidence, a secondary adjustable male sling system might be a feasible option in selected patients with acceptable complication rates, whereas a valuable outcome regarding continence rates cannot be sufficiently supplied by our data. SN - 1423-0399 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32541144/Secondary_Sling_Implantation_after_Failure_of_Primary_Surgical_Treatment_for_Male_Stress_Urinary_Incontinence:_A_Retrospective_Study L2 - https://www.karger.com?DOI=10.1159/000508585 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -
Try the Free App:
Prime PubMed app for iOS iPhone iPad
Prime PubMed app for Android
Prime PubMed is provided
free to individuals by:
Unbound Medicine.