Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence?

David D. Thiel, Paul R. Young, Gregory A. Broderick, Michael G. Heckman, Michael J. Wehle, Todd C. Igel, Steven P. Petrou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether urodynamic or clinical parameters can predict artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) outcome in patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy (RP). Incontinence after RP is secondary to intrinsic sphincter deficiency, but urodynamics have been advocated before AUS placement to detect factors that could limit surgical success. Methods: We reviewed all AUSs placed for RP incontinence from January 1995 to December 2004. The preoperative clinical parameters and urodynamic parameters were correlated with surgical success using linear and logistic regression analysis, respectively. Surgical failure was defined as requiring more than one pad per day. Results: The data from 86 patients (mean age 72 years) were analyzed. Of these 86 patients, 15 (17%) were wearing more than 1 pad per day at the last follow-up visit; 11 patients (13%) considered their operation a failure; and 20 patients (24%) had postoperative urgency. The presence of detrusor overactivity (P = 0.92), low first sensation (P = 0.52), low bladder compliance (P = 0.38), and bladder capacity less than 300 mL (P = 0.58) in patients did not predict for AUS failure compared with patients without these findings. No clinical parameters were found that demonstrated a statistical association with the number of pads per day. Older patients considered themselves less improved (P = 0.012) than did younger patients. Conclusions: No evidence has shown that patients who are incontinent after RP who have detrusor overactivity, a low first sensation, decreased compliance, or a low bladder capacity have worse post-AUS outcomes than other patients. Older patients tended to have decreased perceived improvement. We found no clinical or urodynamic parameter that would be a contraindication to AUS placement for post-RP incontinence.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)315-319
Number of pages5
JournalUrology
Volume69
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2007

Fingerprint

Artificial Urinary Sphincter
Urodynamics
Prostatectomy
Urinary Bladder
Compliance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Thiel, D. D., Young, P. R., Broderick, G. A., Heckman, M. G., Wehle, M. J., Igel, T. C., & Petrou, S. P. (2007). Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence? Urology, 69(2), 315-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.026

Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence? / Thiel, David D.; Young, Paul R.; Broderick, Gregory A.; Heckman, Michael G.; Wehle, Michael J.; Igel, Todd C.; Petrou, Steven P.

In: Urology, Vol. 69, No. 2, 02.2007, p. 315-319.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Thiel, DD, Young, PR, Broderick, GA, Heckman, MG, Wehle, MJ, Igel, TC & Petrou, SP 2007, 'Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence?', Urology, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 315-319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.026
Thiel, David D. ; Young, Paul R. ; Broderick, Gregory A. ; Heckman, Michael G. ; Wehle, Michael J. ; Igel, Todd C. ; Petrou, Steven P. / Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence?. In: Urology. 2007 ; Vol. 69, No. 2. pp. 315-319.
@article{0a9f82e1f3a64c169815e696f2ddc9f3,
title = "Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence?",
abstract = "Objectives: To determine whether urodynamic or clinical parameters can predict artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) outcome in patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy (RP). Incontinence after RP is secondary to intrinsic sphincter deficiency, but urodynamics have been advocated before AUS placement to detect factors that could limit surgical success. Methods: We reviewed all AUSs placed for RP incontinence from January 1995 to December 2004. The preoperative clinical parameters and urodynamic parameters were correlated with surgical success using linear and logistic regression analysis, respectively. Surgical failure was defined as requiring more than one pad per day. Results: The data from 86 patients (mean age 72 years) were analyzed. Of these 86 patients, 15 (17{\%}) were wearing more than 1 pad per day at the last follow-up visit; 11 patients (13{\%}) considered their operation a failure; and 20 patients (24{\%}) had postoperative urgency. The presence of detrusor overactivity (P = 0.92), low first sensation (P = 0.52), low bladder compliance (P = 0.38), and bladder capacity less than 300 mL (P = 0.58) in patients did not predict for AUS failure compared with patients without these findings. No clinical parameters were found that demonstrated a statistical association with the number of pads per day. Older patients considered themselves less improved (P = 0.012) than did younger patients. Conclusions: No evidence has shown that patients who are incontinent after RP who have detrusor overactivity, a low first sensation, decreased compliance, or a low bladder capacity have worse post-AUS outcomes than other patients. Older patients tended to have decreased perceived improvement. We found no clinical or urodynamic parameter that would be a contraindication to AUS placement for post-RP incontinence.",
author = "Thiel, {David D.} and Young, {Paul R.} and Broderick, {Gregory A.} and Heckman, {Michael G.} and Wehle, {Michael J.} and Igel, {Todd C.} and Petrou, {Steven P.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.026",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "69",
pages = "315--319",
journal = "Urology",
issn = "0090-4295",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Do Clinical or Urodynamic Parameters Predict Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcome in Post-Radical Prostatectomy Incontinence?

AU - Thiel, David D.

AU - Young, Paul R.

AU - Broderick, Gregory A.

AU - Heckman, Michael G.

AU - Wehle, Michael J.

AU - Igel, Todd C.

AU - Petrou, Steven P.

PY - 2007/2

Y1 - 2007/2

N2 - Objectives: To determine whether urodynamic or clinical parameters can predict artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) outcome in patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy (RP). Incontinence after RP is secondary to intrinsic sphincter deficiency, but urodynamics have been advocated before AUS placement to detect factors that could limit surgical success. Methods: We reviewed all AUSs placed for RP incontinence from January 1995 to December 2004. The preoperative clinical parameters and urodynamic parameters were correlated with surgical success using linear and logistic regression analysis, respectively. Surgical failure was defined as requiring more than one pad per day. Results: The data from 86 patients (mean age 72 years) were analyzed. Of these 86 patients, 15 (17%) were wearing more than 1 pad per day at the last follow-up visit; 11 patients (13%) considered their operation a failure; and 20 patients (24%) had postoperative urgency. The presence of detrusor overactivity (P = 0.92), low first sensation (P = 0.52), low bladder compliance (P = 0.38), and bladder capacity less than 300 mL (P = 0.58) in patients did not predict for AUS failure compared with patients without these findings. No clinical parameters were found that demonstrated a statistical association with the number of pads per day. Older patients considered themselves less improved (P = 0.012) than did younger patients. Conclusions: No evidence has shown that patients who are incontinent after RP who have detrusor overactivity, a low first sensation, decreased compliance, or a low bladder capacity have worse post-AUS outcomes than other patients. Older patients tended to have decreased perceived improvement. We found no clinical or urodynamic parameter that would be a contraindication to AUS placement for post-RP incontinence.

AB - Objectives: To determine whether urodynamic or clinical parameters can predict artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) outcome in patients who were incontinent after radical prostatectomy (RP). Incontinence after RP is secondary to intrinsic sphincter deficiency, but urodynamics have been advocated before AUS placement to detect factors that could limit surgical success. Methods: We reviewed all AUSs placed for RP incontinence from January 1995 to December 2004. The preoperative clinical parameters and urodynamic parameters were correlated with surgical success using linear and logistic regression analysis, respectively. Surgical failure was defined as requiring more than one pad per day. Results: The data from 86 patients (mean age 72 years) were analyzed. Of these 86 patients, 15 (17%) were wearing more than 1 pad per day at the last follow-up visit; 11 patients (13%) considered their operation a failure; and 20 patients (24%) had postoperative urgency. The presence of detrusor overactivity (P = 0.92), low first sensation (P = 0.52), low bladder compliance (P = 0.38), and bladder capacity less than 300 mL (P = 0.58) in patients did not predict for AUS failure compared with patients without these findings. No clinical parameters were found that demonstrated a statistical association with the number of pads per day. Older patients considered themselves less improved (P = 0.012) than did younger patients. Conclusions: No evidence has shown that patients who are incontinent after RP who have detrusor overactivity, a low first sensation, decreased compliance, or a low bladder capacity have worse post-AUS outcomes than other patients. Older patients tended to have decreased perceived improvement. We found no clinical or urodynamic parameter that would be a contraindication to AUS placement for post-RP incontinence.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847024401&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847024401&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.026

DO - 10.1016/j.urology.2006.10.026

M3 - Article

C2 - 17320671

AN - SCOPUS:33847024401

VL - 69

SP - 315

EP - 319

JO - Urology

JF - Urology

SN - 0090-4295

IS - 2

ER -