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.

  • Article
  • Published:

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

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 34, pages 37–43 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

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.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Fig. 1: Cystoscopy of cuff-based urethral coaptation from AUS.
Fig. 2: Cadaveric dissection of candidate sites for cuff placement.
Fig. 3: Tandem (“double”) cuff placement.
Fig. 4: Transcorporal cuff placement.
Fig. 5: Urethral subcuff capsulotomy.
Fig. 6: Interrogation of pressure regulating balloon.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: An analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology. 2015;86:602–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fuller TW, Ballon-Landa EE, Gallo K, Smith TG 3rd, Ajay D, Westney OL, et al. Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and non-radiated patients. J Urol. 2020. Epub ahead of print.

  3. Loh-Doyle JC, Hartman N, Nazemi A, Wayne K, Doumanian LR, Ginsberg DA, et al. Mechanical failure rates of artificial urinary sphincter components: Is the 3.5-cm urethral cuff at higher risk? Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chouhan JD, Terlecki RP. A user’s guide for surgery involving the artificial urinary sphincter. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:167–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bugeja S, Ivaz SL, Frost A, Andrich DE, Mundy AR. Urethral atrophy after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: Fact or fiction? BJU Int. 2016;117:669–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Moses RA, Keihani S, Craig JR, Basilius J, Hotaling JM, Lenherr SM, et al. Efficacy of pressure regulating balloon exchange in men with post artificial urinary sphincter persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2019;123:252–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Trost L, Elliott D. Small intestinal submucosa urethral wrap at the time of artificial urinary sphincter placement as a salvage treatment option for patients with persistent/recurrent in- continence following multiple prior sphincter failures and erosions. Urology. 2012;79:933–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Maurer V, Marks P, Dahlem R, Rosenbaum CM, Meyer CP, Riechardt S, et al. Functional outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation with distal bulbar double cuff in men with and without a history of external beam radiotherapy: an analysis of a prospective database. BJU Int. 2019;124:1040–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. O’Connor RC, Lyon MB, Guralnick ML, Bales GT. Long-term follow- up of single versus double cuff artificial urinary sphincter insertion for the treatment of severe postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2008;71:90–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Manka MG, Wright EJ. Does use of a second cuff improve artificial urinary sphincter effectiveness? Evaluation using a comparative cadaver model. J Urol. 2015;194:1688–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. O’Connor RC, Gerber GS, Avila D, Chen AA, Bales GT. Comparison of outcomes after single or DOUBLE-CUFF artificial urinary sphincter insertion. Urology. 2003;62:723–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Guralnick ML, Miller E, Toh KL, Webster GD. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy. J Urol. 2002;167:2075–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Brant WO, Erickson BA, Elliott SP, Powell C, Alsikafi N, McClung C, et al. Risk factors for erosion of artificial urinary sphincters: a multicenter prospective study. Urology. 2014;84:934–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearlman AM, Rasper AM, Terlecki RP. Proof of concept: exposing the myth of urethral atrophy after artificial urinary sphincter via assessment of circumferential recovery after capsulotomy and intraoperative pressure profiling of the pressure regulating balloon. Investig Clin Urol. 2018;59:275–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Pearlman AM, Terlecki RP. Subcuff capsulotomy and pressure regulating balloon interrogation: dispelling urethral atrophy during urinary sphincter revision for recurrent incontinence. VJPU. 2018;2:134.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Henry G, Wilson S, Delk J, Carson C, Wiygul J, Tornehl, Cleves M, Silverstein A, Donatucci C. Revision washout decreases penile prosthesis infection in revision surgery: multicenter study. J Urol. 2005;173:89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Ryan P. Terlecki

  2. Department of Urology, Institute for Urologic Excellence, La Quinta, CA, USA

    Steven K. Wilson

Authors
  1. Ryan P. Terlecki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan P. Terlecki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

SKW: Consultant; AMT, Coloplast, International Medical Devices. Lecturer; Boston Scientific. Stockholder; NeoTract. RPT: Consultant; Boston Scientific. Lecturer; Boston Scientific. Grant Support; Boston Scientific, Department of Defense.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Terlecki, R.P., Wilson, S.K. A new paradigm for surgical revision of the artificial urinary sphincter for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: Wilson’s Workshop 11. Int J Impot Res 34, 37–43 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0307-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0307-8

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links