A new paradigm for surgical revision of the artificial urinary sphincter for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: Wilson’s Workshop 11

• Published in: International journal of impotence research Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. 37 - 43
• Main Authors: Terlecki, Ryan P., Wilson, Steven K.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01-01-2022; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 692/699/2768/587; 692/700/565/545; Humans; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Mens health; Prostheses; Reoperation; Reproductive Medicine; Retrospective Studies; rology; Surgical outcomes; Surgical techniques; Urethra - surgery; Urinary incontinence; Urinary Incontinence, Stress - surgery; Urinary Sphincter, Artificial - adverse effects; Urological surgery; Urology
• ISSN: 0955-9930; 1476-5489
• DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-0307-8

Although the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is widely regarded as the “gold standard” for surgical correction of male stress urinary incontinence, long-term durability for symptom control is variable. A significant number of men will experience a decline in device-related improvement over time. With erosion of initial success, men sufficiently bothered by recurrent incontinence not caused by device malfunction may seek surgical revision. Secondary surgery requires careful consideration on the part of the prosthetic urologist and a keen awareness of sound surgical techniques. The armamentarium for revision has traditionally consisted of strategies involving cuff downsizing and/or relocation, modification of the pressure regulating balloon, urethral wrapping, addition of a tandem cuff, or use of transcorporal cuff placement. These options will be presented in view of their evidence and theoretical advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we will discuss a newer approach of growing popularity that serves to challenge existing dogma and shift the paradigm of AUS revision surgery.