OBJECTIVES: To report the clinical outcomes of the Victo™ (Promedon, Cordoba, Argentina) adjustable artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in a cohort of patients with severe urinary incontinence (UI) after prostate surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study enrolled patients with UI following prostate surgery who underwent a Victo implantation between May 2018 and December 2023. Patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline, and at 3 and 12 months after device activation, and thereafter annually. The 24-h pad-weight test (24hPWT) was used to assess severity of UI, while the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) and patient satisfaction according to a Likert scale were used to measure patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 68 (65-72) years were included in the final analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 3 (1-4) years. In all, 10 patients completed the 5-year follow-up. After the treatment, we observed a significant reduction in 24hPWT by the median of 83% (P < 0.001) at 3 months and by a median of 79% (P < 0.001) at 3 years. According to the PGI-I, a total of 87%, 92%, 87%, 81%, 83%, and 50% (five of 10) of patients rated their condition/incontinence as 'very much improved', 'much improved' or 'little improved' at 3 months, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year follow-up visits, respectively. The proportion of patients, who were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with the treatment outcome was 79%, 80%, 75%, 69%, 80%, and 60% (six of 10) at 3 months, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-years, respectively. There were a total of 13 (14%) device failures during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, our data suggest that Victo AUS significantly reduces the severity of UI after prostate surgery and provides a reasonably high patient-reported satisfaction with treatment outcomes at mid-term follow-up.

Department of Applied Mathematics Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science VSB Technical University Ostrava Czech Republic

Department of Surgical Studies Ostrava University Ostrava Czech Republic

Department of the Deputy Director for Science Research and Education University Hospital Ostrava Czech Republic

Department of Urology 3rd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and Faculty Thomayer Hospital Prague Czech Republic

Department of Urology University Hospital Ostrava Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Clark CB, Kucherov V, Klonieck E, Shenot PJ, Das AK. Management of urinary incontinence following treatment of prostate disease. Can J Urol 2021; 28(S2): 38–43 PubMed

Castellani D, Rubilotta E, Fabiani A et al. Correlation between transurethral interventions and their influence on type and duration of postoperative urinary incontinence: results from a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies. J Endourol 2022; 36: 1331–1347 PubMed

Prebay ZJ, Foss HE, Wang KR, Chung PH. A narrative review on surgical treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. Transl Androl Urol 2023; 12: 874–886 PubMed PMC

Choinière R, Violette PD, Morin M et al. Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post‐radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8: 1042–1052 PubMed

Fuller TW, Ballon‐Landa E, Gallo K et al. Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and nonradiated cases. J Urol 2020; 204: 110–114 PubMed

Wang M, Liao Y, Liu Y, Zhou W, Yu H. Development and future prospects of the artificial urinary sphincter. Artif Organs 2023; 47: 1688–1699 PubMed

Weibl P, Hoelzel R, Rutkowski M, Huebner W. VICTO and VICTO‐plus ‐ novel alternative for the mangement of postprostatectomy incontinence. Early perioperative and postoperative experience. Cent European. J Urol 2018; 71: 248–249 PubMed PMC

Krhut J, Zachoval R, Smith PP et al. Pad weight testing in the evaluation of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2014; 33: 507–510 PubMed

Busner J, Targum SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 2007; 4: 28–37 PubMed PMC

Smith WJ, VanDyke ME, Venishetty N, Langford BT, Franzen BP, Morey AF. Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: techniques, indications, and pearls for success. Res Rep Urol 2023; 15: 217–232 PubMed PMC

Sacco E, Bientinesi R, Gandi C et al. Patient pad count is a poor measure of urinary incontinence compared with 48‐h pad test: results of a large‐scale multicentre study. BJU Int 2019; 123(5A): E69–E78 PubMed

Reus C, Brattås I, Volz D et al. Evaluation of the 24‐h pad weight test as continence rate assessment tool after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: a Swedish retrospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn 2021; 40: 1585–1592 PubMed

Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long‐term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology 2015; 86: 602–607 PubMed

Yafi FA, DeLay KJ, Stewart C, Chiang J, Sangkum P, Hellstrom WJ. Device survival after primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 2017; 197(3 Pt 1): 759–765 PubMed

Te Dorsthorst MJ, van der Doelen MJ, Farag F, Martens FMJ, Heesakkers JPFA. Survival of the artificial urinary sphincter in a changing patient profile. World J Urol 2019; 37: 899–906 PubMed

McGeady JB, McAninch JW, Truesdale MD, Blaschko SD, Kenfield S, Breyer BN. Artificial urinary sphincter placement in compromised urethras and survival: a comparison of virgin, radiated and reoperative cases. J Urol 2014; 192: 1756–1761 PubMed PMC

Zhang L, Xu Y. Impact of radiation therapy on outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Front Surg 2022; 9: 825239 PubMed PMC

Manfredi C, Krishnappa P, Fernández‐Pascual E et al. Risk factors for revision after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients with stress urinary incontinence: a 10‐year retrospective study. Int Neurourol J 2022; 26: 161–168 PubMed PMC

Linder BJ, Viers BR, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter revision for urethral atrophy: comparing single cuff downsizing and tandem cuff placement. Int Braz J Urol 2017; 43: 264–270 PubMed PMC

Heah NH, Tan RBW. Management of urethral atrophy after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter: what are the weaknesses? Asian J Androl 2020; 22: 60–63 PubMed PMC