2009The Journal of UrologyRequires access

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Versus Male Sling for Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence—What Do Patients Choose?

Angelish Kumar, Elana Rosenberg Litt, Katie N. Ballert, Victor W. Νitti

Open publisher page 213 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: Early outcomes of the male sling to correct post-prostatectomy incontinence have been promising in select patients. Long-term data are lacking to determine whether the male sling is as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter, which is the current gold standard. Because the male sling offers the significant advantage of avoiding a mechanical device but without established success, we determined the patient preference for the male sling vs the artificial urinary sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 133 men with post-prostatectomy incontinence who underwent the first procedure to correct incontinence. After urodynamics the surgeon recommended an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and patients were told the artificial urinary sphincter satisfaction rate and shorter term data on the male sling. Patients with high grade post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight greater than 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter, those with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight 100 to 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and those with mild post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight less than 100 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive a male sling. RESULTS: A total of 84 male sling (63%) and 49 artificial urinary sphincter (37%) procedures were performed. The surgeon recommendation was an artificial urinary sphincter in 63 men (47%) and a male sling in 46 (35%). A total of 24 men (18%) were given the option of either procedure. All patients recommended to receive a male sling chose it. When an artificial urinary sphincter was recommended, 75% of patients chose it, while 25% chose a male sling. When given a choice, 92% of patients chose a male sling and 8% chose an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients adhere to the surgeon recommendation. When men with post-prostatectomy incontinence are offered the choice of an artificial urinary sphincter vs a male sling, the opportunity to avoid using a mechanical device is preferable to undergoing a well established procedure. Men who strongly wish to avoid a mechanical device are willing to go against the surgeon recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: Early outcomes of the male sling to correct post-prostatectomy incontinence have been promising in select patients. Long-term data are lacking to determine whether the male sling is as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter, which is the current gold standard. Because the male sling offers the significant advantage of avoiding a mechanical device but without established success, we determined the patient preference for the male sling vs the artificial urinary sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 133 men with post-prostatectomy incontinence who underwent the first procedure to correct incontinence. After urodynamics the surgeon recommended an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and patients were told the artificial urinary sphincter satisfaction rate and shorter term data on the male sling. Patients with high grade post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight greater than 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter, those with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight 100 to 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and those with mild post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight less than 100 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive a male sling. RESULTS: A total of 84 male sling (63%) and 49 artificial urinary sphincter (37%) procedures were performed. The surgeon recommendation was an artificial urinary sphincter in 63 men (47%) and a male sling in 46 (35%). A total of 24 men (18%) were given the option of either procedure. All patients recommended to receive a male sling chose it. When an artificial urinary sphincter was recommended, 75% of patients chose it, while 25% chose a male sling. When given a choice, 92% of patients chose a male sling and 8% chose an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients adhere to the surgeon recommendation. When men with post-prostatectomy incontinence are offered the choice of an artificial urinary sphincter vs a male sling, the opportunity to avoid using a mechanical device is preferable to undergoing a well established procedure. Men who strongly wish to avoid a mechanical device are willing to go against the surgeon recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 213 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: Early outcomes of the male sling to correct post-prostatectomy incontinence have been promising in select patients. Long-term data are lacking to determine whether the male sling is as effective as the artificial urinary sphincter, which is the current gold standard. Because the male sling offers the significant advantage of avoiding a mechanical device but without established success, we determined the patient preference for the male sling vs the artificial urinary sphincter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 133 men with post-prostatectomy incontinence who underwent the first procedure to correct incontinence. After urodynamics the surgeon recommended an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and patients were told the artificial urinary sphincter satisfaction rate and shorter term data on the male sling. Patients with high grade post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight greater than 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter, those with moderate post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight 100 to 400 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive an artificial urinary sphincter or a male sling and those with mild post-prostatectomy incontinence (pad weight less than 100 gm/24 hours) were recommended to receive a male sling. RESULTS: A total of 84 male sling (63%) and 49 artificial urinary sphincter (37%) procedures were performed. The surgeon recommendation was an artificial urinary sphincter in 63 men (47%) and a male sling in 46 (35%). A total of 24 men (18%) were given the option of either procedure. All patients recommended to receive a male sling chose it. When an artificial urinary sphincter was recommended, 75% of patients chose it, while 25% chose a male sling. When given a choice, 92% of patients chose a male sling and 8% chose an artificial urinary sphincter. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients adhere to the surgeon recommendation. When men with post-prostatectomy incontinence are offered the choice of an artificial urinary sphincter vs a male sling, the opportunity to avoid using a mechanical device is preferable to undergoing a well established procedure. Men who strongly wish to avoid a mechanical device are willing to go against the surgeon recommendation for an artificial urinary sphincter.

Key concepts: Medicine, Artificial urinary sphincter, Urology, Urinary incontinence, Prostatectomy, Sling (weapon), Sphincter, Urethral sphincter

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source