Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Early results of a European multicentre experience with a new self‐anchoring adjustable transobturator system for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men
What's known on the subject? and What does the study add?
Surgical treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) include collagen injection, artificial urinary sphincter, or male sling placement. In recent years, various minimally invasive sling systems have been investigated as treatment options for post‐prostatectomy SUI. One of the drawbacks of using male slings is the lack of ability to make postoperative adjustments. To overcome the challenges associated with peri‐ and postoperative adjustment of male sling systems, the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS®) was introduced.
Our initial European multicentre experience with this device treatment shows a significant improvement in the severity of incontinence and mean pad use as well as quality‐of‐life scores. Our data suggest that the ability at any time to make adjustments in male sling systems should be considered as a prerequisite when managing men with SUI.
Objective
To report our experience with a new self‐anchoring adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS®; AMI, Vienna, Austria) for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in men.
Patients and Methods
A total of 99 men, in a number of centres, were treated for SUI with the new ATOMS® device.
The device was implanted in all patients using an outside‐in technique by passing the obturator foramen and anchoring the device to the inferior pubic ramus. The titanium port was placed s.c. on the left symphysis region. Adjustments were performed via port access.
Postoperative evaluation consisted of physical examination, 24‐h pad test, and 24 h‐pad count. Preoperatively and at 6‐month follow‐up, patients completed a validated quality‐of‐life questionnaire.
Two‐way ANOVA was used to analyse changes over time. Within‐group effects for time were tested using post hoc Dunnett's contrasts of baseline values vs subsequent measurements.
Results
The most common indication was SUI after radical prostatectomy (92.9%). Failure of previous surgeries was present in 34.3% patients and 31.3% patients had undergone secondary radiation.
The mean (SD; range) surgery time was 47 (13.8; 29–112) min.
Temporary urinary retention occurred in two patients (2%) and transient perineal/scrotal dysaesthesia or pain was reported by 68 patients (68.7%) and resolved after 3–4 weeks of non‐opioid analgesics.
There were four (4%) cases of wound infection at the site of the titanium port leading to explantation. No urethral or bladder injuries related to the device or erosions occurred.
The mean (SD; range) number of adjustments to reach the desired result (dryness, improvement and/or patient satisfaction) was 3.8 (1.3; 1–6). After a mean (SD; range) follow‐up time of 17.8 (1.6; 12–33) months, the overall success rate was 92% and the mean pad use decreased from 7.1 to 1.3 pads/24 h (P < 0.001). Overall, 63% were considered dry and 29% were improved.
Conclusion
Treatment of male SUI with this self‐anchored adjustable system is safe and effective.