Outcomes of the Victo™ adjustable artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of male incontinence
Language English Country England, Great Britain Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
39187277
PubMed Central
PMC11628927
DOI
10.1111/bju.16511
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- artificial urinary sphincter, pad‐weight test, patient‐reported outcomes, radiotherapy, urinary incontinence,
- MeSH
- Urinary Incontinence * surgery therapy MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Postoperative Complications MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Prostatectomy * adverse effects MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Patient Satisfaction MeSH
- Urinary Sphincter, Artificial * MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
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 Surgical Studies Ostrava University Ostrava 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