Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation
Do you wish to request the book?
The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation
2020
Overview
PurposeTo determine whether salvage artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation after prior incontinence surgery achieves outcomes comparable to primary AUS implantation.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated data of patients undergoing AUS implantation from 2009 to 2014. Functional outcome was objectified by 1-h stress pad test, uroflowmetry, post-void residual urine measurement, clinical examination, and chart review. Complications were categorized according to Clavien–Dindo classification system. Kaplan–Meier analysis determined explantation-free survival.ResultsA total of 235 patients were included of whom 165 (70.2%) underwent primary AUS. In 70 patients, salvage incontinence surgery was performed, with 24 (10.2%) patients undergoing AUS reimplantation after prior AUS surgery (repeat AUS) and 46 (19.6%) patients undergoing AUS surgery after any other type of incontinence surgery (secondary AUS). There were no significant differences in rates of continence among primary AUS and repeat AUS patients. Patients undergoing secondary AUS had significantly better continence rates than primary and repeat AUS patients. Three-year explantation-free survival rates after AUS insertion were 82.3% (primary AUS), 78.6% (repeat AUS) and 81.5% (secondary AUS). There were no differences in complication rates among the groups.ConclusionAUS is a safe option in the treatment of severe incontinence even after prior AUS or any other prior incontinence surgery and can still achieve satisfactory outcomes as salvage treatment.
