4.2 Article

Impact of radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients: A multicenter study

Journal

NEUROUROLOGY AND URODYNAMICS
Volume 41, Issue 1, Pages 332-339

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nau.24825

Keywords

artificial urinary sphincter; prostate cancer; radiotherapy; urethra; urinary incontinence

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Male patients with a history of pelvic radiotherapy have poorer device survival outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter implantation, with increased risk of infection-erosion and need for explantation.
Aims To evaluate the impact of an history of radiation therapy on the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in male patients. Methods The charts of all patients who underwent AUS implantation for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate surgery in thirteen centers between 2004 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. We excluded patients with neurogenic SUI. Continence rates and incidence of complications, revision and cuff erosion were evaluated. The outcomes in irradiated men were compared to those of non irradiated men. Results A total of 1277 patients who had an AUS met the inclusion criteria with a median age of 70 years, of which 437 had an history of prior radiotherapy. There was no difference in comorbidities. In irradiated patients, postoperative social continence, urethral atrophy and infection rates were respectively 75.6%, 2.4% and 9.5% and 76.8%, 5.4%, and 5.8% in nonirradiated men (respectively, p = 0.799, p = 0.128, p = 0.148). There were more urethral erosion in irradiated male patients. After a mean follow up of 36.8 months, the explantation free survival was poorer in irradiated patients (p = 0.001). Conclusion These data suggest that pelvic radiotherapy before AUS adversely affect device survival with and increased greater occurrence of infection-erosion and therefore of explantation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available