Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

Treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: the case against the male sling

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 3, pages 290–291 (2006)Cite this article

For the man suffering from urinary incontinence following prostatectomy, two surgical options are currently available: the bulbous urethral sling (BUS) and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). Is one of these options preferable? To answer this question, we reviewed the literature looking at results for both treatment modalities.

In our review of the literature for BUS implantation following prostatectomy, we found 20 papers, with publication years ranging from 1997 to 2005. Review papers, papers describing techniques or urodynamic evaluations but not results, duplicate contemporaneous reports by the same authors, and early reports which were subsequently updated were excluded; nine papers were excluded for these reasons. A further seven papers were excluded because they had a mean follow-up of less than 1 year, or a patient number of less than 20; this left four case series for evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Castle EP et al. (2005) The male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence: mean followup of 18 months. J Urol 173: 1657–1660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Rajpurkar et al. (2005) Patient satisfaction and clinical efficacy of the new perineal bone-anchored male sling. Eur Urol 47: 237–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ullrich NF and Comiter CV (2004) The male sling for stress urinary incontinence: 24-month followup with questionnaire based assessment. J Urol 172: 207–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Stern JA et al. (2005) Long-term results of the bulbourethral sling procedure. J Urol 173: 1654–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kaufman JJ (1973) Treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence using a silicone gel prosthesis. Br J Urol 45: 646–653

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Scott FB et al. (1973) Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter. Urology 1: 252–259

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Montague DK (1984) Evolution of implanted devices for urinary incontinence. Cleve Clin Q 51: 405–409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Montague DK and Angermeier KW (2000) Postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: the case for artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Urology 55: 2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Montague DK et al. (2001) Long-term continence and patient satisfaction after artificial sphincter implantation for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. J Urol 166: 547–549

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Professor of Surgery, the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University,

    Drogo K Montague

  2. Section of Prosthetic Surgery and Genitourethral Reconstruction at the Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Drogo K Montague & Kenneth W Angermeier

  3. Associate Professor of Surgery, the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University,

    Kenneth W Angermeier

Authors
  1. Drogo K Montague
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth W Angermeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drogo K Montague.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Both authors have received honoraria as consultants and speakers for American Medical Systems (AMS) Minnesota, MN, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montague, D., Angermeier, K. Treatment of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: the case against the male sling. Nat Rev Urol 3, 290–291 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0502

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0502

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing