Distal Double Cuff Vs. Transcorporal Cuff as Salvage Options - a Prospective Analysis of Different Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AMS 800) Implantation Sites

OBJECTIVE: To analyze functional outcomes and complication rates of distal double cuffs (DC) or transcorporal cuffs (TC) as salvage approaches in high-risk patients, since there is an ongoing debate about optimal cuff-placement in a salvage setting (SV). Existing studies analyzing DC or TC are controversial with respect to functional outcomes and complication rates. Studies directly comparing both approaches in SV are scarce.

METHODS AND PATIENTS: Prospective data collection was performed since 2009. DC/TC were applied according to a standardized protocol in SV. Salvage DC was chosen in case of a membranous single cuff explantation due to erosion or infection. TC were implanted after bulbar urethroplasty or DC explantation. Activation was performed 6 weeks postoperatively. Further follow-up was scheduled 6/24 months postoperatively and every 2 years thereafter. Primary/secondary endpoints were continence/complication rates.

RESULTS: In total, 71 high-risk patients were available for analysis (58 DC, 13 TC). Median age was 70 years. Median follow-up was 24 months. Objective/social continence were 88%/94% in the DC and 72%/100% in the TC cohort, respectively (P = .37/P = 1). Overall, there were no significant differences with respect to infections, erosions, mechanical failure, and explantation rates. The times of explantation-free survival were similar in Kaplan-Meier analysis (Log-rank 0.399).

CONCLUSION: Complication and continence rates were not significantly different between both cohorts. Hence, a DC in SV can be considered as equally safe and effective. A sequential implantation (first DC, second TC) may be a viable approach to extend overall AUS incontinence therapy.