Outcomes of the Victo™ adjustable artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of male incontinence
Jazyk angličtina Země Anglie, Velká Británie Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
39187277
PubMed Central
PMC11628927
DOI
10.1111/bju.16511
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- artificial urinary sphincter, pad‐weight test, patient‐reported outcomes, radiotherapy, urinary incontinence,
- MeSH
- inkontinence moči * chirurgie terapie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- pooperační komplikace MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- prostatektomie * škodlivé účinky MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- spokojenost pacientů MeSH
- umělý močový svěrač * MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články 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
Zobrazit více v 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