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:

First safety outcomes for rigicon conticlassic® artificial urinary sphincter

International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The Rigicon ContiClassic® is a new sphincteric device designed to treat male stress urinary incontinence. This study evaluates the surgical outcomes and safety profile of the first 116 patients who received the implant between September 2021 and April 2022. Data were collected from patient information forms completed at the time of the implant and submitted by implanting surgeons, nursing staff in the Operating Room or company representatives present during the surgery. The study analyzed patient demographics, surgical details, and etiology of incontinence. The mean age of patients was 68.3 years +/− 9.65 yrs. Minimum age was 23 and maximum age was 83. The most common reason for implantation was urinary incontinence (58.6%) after radical prostatectomy. The results showed a revision rate of 6.90%, with three cases of fluid loss, four cases of iatrogenic mistaken sizing, and one case of patient dissatisfaction. There were no reported infections. Kaplan-Meier calculation showed survival rate of 93.2% at 12 months. This study shows the early safety outcomes for the Rigicon ContiClassic® sphincter device to be comparable to others presently on the market.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not openly available due to reasons of sensitivity and are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, Eastham JA, Gomez C, Kirages DJ, et al. Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2019;202:369–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wright JL, Nathens AB, Rivara FP, Mackenzie EJ, Wessells H. Specific fracture configurations predict sexual and excretory dysfunction in men and women 1 year after pelvic fracture. J Urol. 2006;176:1540–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koch GE, Kaufman MR. Male stress urinary incontinence. Urol Clin North Am. 2022;49:403–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pizzol D, Demurtas J, Celotto S, Maggi S, Smith L, Angiolelli G, et al. Urinary incontinence and quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022;33:25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chung E. Contemporary surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence: a review of technological advances in current continence surgery. Trans Androl Urol. 2017;6:S112–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Fuller TW, Ballon-Landa E, 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 Nonradiated Cases. J Urol. 2020;204:110–14.

  7. Wilson SK, Westney OL, Mulcahy JJ. Twenty years later: is the scrotal one-incision AUS of value? Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:243–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Terlecki RP, Wilson SK. A new paradigm for surgical revision of the artificial urinary sphincter for recurrent stress urinary incontinence. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson S, Delk J 2nd, Henry GD, Siegel AL. New surgical technique for sphincter urinary control system using upper transverse scrotal incision. J Urol. 2003;169:261–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Abrams P, Constable LD, Cooper D, MacLennan G, Drake MJ, Harding C, et al. Outcomes of a noninferiority randomized controlled trial of surgery for men with urodynamic stress incontinence after prostate surgery (MASTER). Eur Urol. 2021;79:812–23.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yoon PD, Chalasani V, Woo HH. Use of Clavien-Dindo classification in reporting and grading complications after urological surgical procedures: analysis of 2010-2012. J Urol. 2013;190:1271–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter. Urology. 1973;1:252–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson SK, Wen L, Rossello M, Maria P, Carrion R, Perito P, et al. Initial safety outcomes for the Rigicon Infla10® inflatable penile prosthesis. published online ahead of print, 2023 BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15960.

  14. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol. 2000;164:376–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldstein I, Newman L, Baum N, Brooks M, Chaikin L, Goldberg K, et al. Safety and efficacy outcome of mentor alpha-1 inflatable penile prosthesis implantation for impotence treatment. J Urol. 1997;157:833–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Queissert F, Huesch T, Kretschmer A, Anding R, Kurosch M, Kirschner-Hermanns R, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter cuff size predicts outcome in male patients treated for stress incontinence: results of a large central european multicenter cohort study. Int Neurourol J 2019;23:219–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gundian JC, Barrett DM, Parulkar BG. Mayo Clinic experience with use of the AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter for urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 1989;142:1459–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ostrowsky I, Ciechan J, Sledz E, Wojciech D, Tomasz G, Chlosta P. Four-year follow-up on a Zephyr Surgical Implants 375 artificial urinary sphincter for male incontinence from one urological center. Cent Eur J Urol. 2018;71:320–25.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Giammo A, Falcone M, Blecher G, Ammirati E, Geretto P, Manassero A, et al. A novel artificial urinary sphincter (VICTO®) for the management of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: description of the surgical technique and preliminary results from a multicenter series. Urol Int. 2021;105:414–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013;63:681–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Urologic Excellence, La Quinta, CA, USA

    Steven K. Wilson

  2. Department of Urology, AndroUrology Centre, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Eric Chung

  3. Department of Urology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA

    Brian Langford

  4. Department of Urology, Clinica Marly, Bogota, Colombia

    Ricardo Schlesinger

  5. Department of Urology, Medistate Kavacik Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey

    Orhan Koca

  6. Department of Urology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, Basaksehir, Turkey

    Abdulmuttalip Simsek

  7. Department of Urology, Carol Davila University of Medicine, Bucharest, Romania

    Cristian Persu

  8. Department of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Pottek

  9. Division of Urology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, USA

    John Mulcahy

Authors
  1. Steven K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eric Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brian Langford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ricardo Schlesinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Orhan Koca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abdulmuttalip Simsek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cristian Persu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tobias Pottek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. John Mulcahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian Langford.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

SW: International Medical Devices, Rigicon, Uramix. RS: Boston Scientific. JM: Boston Scientific All other authors: none. SKW wrote the article. Eric Chung provided major editing. All other authors reviewed the article and made minor editing of typos. BL electronically submitted the article. There was no funding from industry. The material presented in this manuscript contains original research, has not been previously published and has not been submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, S.K., Chung, E., Langford, B. et al. First safety outcomes for rigicon conticlassic® artificial urinary sphincter. Int J Impot Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00748-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00748-8

Search

Advanced search

Quick links