MP88-20 SUCCESS RATES OF ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER PLACEMENT FOLLOWING URETHROPLASTY

Le résumé fourni par la source

You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Male Incontinence: Therapy1 Apr 2015MP88-20 SUCCESS RATES OF ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER PLACEMENT FOLLOWING URETHROPLASTY Christopher Powell, Travis Dum, William Brant, and Joshua Broghammer Christopher PowellChristopher Powell More articles by this author , Travis DumTravis Dum More articles by this author , William BrantWilliam Brant More articles by this author , and Joshua BroghammerJoshua Broghammer More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.1853AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) following urethroplasty are often categorized as high-risk due to previous urethral instrumentation and theoretical altered urethral vascular supply. Limited data exist regarding outcomes in these patients making appropriate patient counseling difficult at best. We compare outcomes of AUS placement at two tertiary care centers to determine outcomes of AUS placement in patients who had undergone previous urethroplasty. METHODS A retrospective analysis of patients treated with AUS placement from November 2008 to December 2013 was performed at two tertiary care centers. All patients receiving AUS placement were included regardless of urinary incontinence etiology. Patients were divided into “average risk” (AR) and previous urethroplasty (PU) cohorts. Patients with a history of radiation therapy, multiple treatments for bladder neck contracture or urethral stricture, urethral stent placement, or a history of erosion or infection in a previous AUS and were excluded from the AR cohort. Charts were analyzed for pre-operative risk factors as well as post-operative complications, revisions, and pad usage. RESULTS 141 patients underwent AUS placement during the study period. 13 patients undergoing AUS placement had a history of previous urethroplasty (PU). Patients were included regardless of indication for urethroplasty. Indications for urethroplasty included urethral stricture, AUS erosion, and bladder neck contracture in 9, 3, and 1 patient respectively. 63 patients were considered average risk (AR). Post-operative complication rate was 15.4% (n=2, RR 1.38, p=0.66) in the PU group and 11.1% (n=7) in the AR group. Complications in the PU group included persistent bothersome incontinence and erosion each in a single patient. Mean postoperative pad use was 0.96 (n=53) in AR group vs 2.1 in PU group (n=8). Mean follow-up time was 10.9 months (range 1-35) for AR group and 4 months (range 1-9) for PU group. CONCLUSIONS Patients who had previously undergone a urethroplasty for any indication were not statistically more likely to develop a postoperative complication than “average risk” patients. Post-operative pad usage was twice that of the AR group. While longer follow-up is necessary, these data suggest that patients undergoing AUS placement following urethroplasty may have a similar complication rate to that of the general population. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e1099 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Christopher Powell More articles by this author Travis Dum More articles by this author William Brant More articles by this author Joshua Broghammer More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.