Comparison of Outcomes for Adjustable Bulbourethral Male Sling and Artificial Urinary Sphincter After Previous Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosion

ObjectivesTo compare the outcomes of the adjustable bulbourethral male sling and artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in patients with recurrent postprostatectomy incontinence after previous AUS erosion.MethodsSixteen patients with recurrent postprostatectomy incontinence who had undergone either adjustable bulbourethral male sling placement (group 1, n = 8) or AUS implantation (group 2, n = 8) were included in the study. The preoperative evaluations included history, physical examination, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-short form, pad test, cystoscopy, and urodynamic studies. The follow-up examinations were performed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively and annually thereafter.ResultsThe mean follow-up was 10 months (range 7-19) and 22 months (range 6-38) for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .009). Of the 16 patients, 6 were cured, 1 with the sling and 5 with the AUS (cure was defined as no pads daily); 3 were improved, 1 with the sling and 2 with the AUS (improvement was defined as no more than 2 pads daily), and 7 had treatment failure, 6 with the sling and 1 with the AUS. No intraoperative complication was seen in either group. Readjustment of sling tension was done in 4 patients who had persistent incontinence. No reoperation, excluding the readjustments, was required in group 1; however, 3 patients had transient perineal pain. The AUS was removed for recent erosion at 6 and 12 months postoperatively in 1 cured patient and 1 patient with treatment failure, respectively. Ultimately, 50% of the patients (25% with the sling and 75% with the AUS) were cured or improved.ConclusionsThe results of our study have shown that AUS implantation results in better outcomes than placement of the adjustable bulbourethral male sling as secondary therapy.