Download PDF
Aktuelle Urol 2023; 54(06): 449-456
DOI: 10.1055/a-2108-7615
Übersicht

Einsatz von Implantaten zur Versorgung der männlichen Harninkontinenz

Use of implants to treat male urinary incontinence
Cesar Rojas Cruz
1   Urology, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Rostock, Germany (Ringgold ID: RIN39071)
,
Oliver Hakenberg
2   Urology, Universitätsmedizin Rostock (AöR), Rostock, Germany
,
Desiree Louise Dräger
2   Urology, Universitätsmedizin Rostock (AöR), Rostock, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Behandlungen für benigne und maligne Erkrankungen der Prostata können die Harnkontinenz beeinträchtigen. Harninkontinenz reduziert die Lebensqualität der Patienten und schränkt ihre Fähigkeit ein, normale Aktivitäten auszuführen. Der Grad der Harninkontinenz ist unterschiedlich und die damit verbundenen Beschwerden veranlassen Patienten dazu, sich behandeln zu lassen. Im Zentrum der Behandlung stehen chirurgische Eingriffe, die durch den Einsatz von Implantaten die beeinträchtigte Schließmuskelfunktion der männlichen Urethra ersetzen sollen. Der künstliche Harnröhrensphinkter gilt seit seiner Entwicklung in den 1970er-Jahren als Standard zur Therapie von männlichen Harninkontinenz. Erst kürzlich hat sich gezeigt, dass artifizielle Sphinkter und Schlingen bei einer ausgewählten Gruppe inkontinenter Männer wirksam sind. Zu den Zielen der chirurgischen Behandlung der Inkontinenz gehören die Erhaltung der Blasenfunktion, die Fähigkeit, die Stärke des Harnröhrensphinkters zu verbessern und den Urinverlust zu reduzieren oder zu beseitigen, und damit die Lebensqualität zu verbessern. Ziel der Artikel ist die Darstellung verschiedener Implantate zur Korrektur der männlichen Harninkontinenz.

Abstract

Treatments for benign and malignant pathologies of the prostate can compromise urine control. Urinary incontinence (UI) affects the quality of life of patients and limits their ability to carry out usual activities. The degree of impact of UI is variable and the associated discomforts make patients seek treatment for it. At the center of the management of urinary incontinence in men are surgical interventions that seek to replace the affected sphincter function through implants. The artificial urinary sphincter since its development in the 1970s has been considered the standard of treatment for UI in men. More recently artificial sphincter and slings have been shown to be effective in a selected group of incontinent men. The goals of surgical treatment of incontinence include the preservation of bladder function, the ability to improve the strength of the urinary sphincter, and to reduce or eliminate urine leakage, and thereby improve the quality of life. The aim of the article is to present various implants for the correction of male urinary incontinence.

Schlüsselwörter

männliche Inkontinenz - Implantate - Lebensqualität

Keywords

male urinary incontinence - implantats - improving quality of life


Publication History

Received: 21 May 2023

Accepted after revision: 25 July 2023

Article published online:
25 September 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kesch C. et al. Radical Prostatectomy: Sequelae in the Course of Time. Front Surg 2021; 8: 684088
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Mastroianni R. et al. Open vs robotic intracorporeal Padua ileal bladder: functional outcomes of a single-centre RCT. World J Urol 2023; 41: 739-746
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Wilson LC, Gilling PJ. Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review of surgical treatment options. BJU Int 2011; 107 (Suppl. 03) 7-10
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Johnson EE. et al. Conservative interventions for managing urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; 4: Cd014799
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Coyne KS. et al. Urinary incontinence and its relationship to mental health and health-related quality of life in men and women in Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Eur Urol 2012; 61: 88-95
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Comiter CV. Male incontinence surgery in the 21st century: past, present, and future. Curr Opin Urol 2010; 20: 302-308
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Gacci M. et al. Latest Evidence on Post-Prostatectomy Urinary Incontinence. J Clin Med 2023; 12: 1190
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Park JJ. et al. Efficacy of surgical treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int J Surg 2023; 109: 401-411
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Treatment of urinary incontinence by an implantable prosthetic urinary sphincter. J Urol 1974; 112: 75-80
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sandhu JS. et al. Incontinence after Prostate Treatment: AUA/SUFU Guideline. J Urol 2019; 202: 369-378
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Chung E. et al. The Asia-Pacific AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter consensus statement. Int J Urol 2023; 30: 128-138
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Biardeau X. et al. Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Report of the 2015 Consensus Conference. Neurourol Urodyn 2016; 35 (Suppl. 02) S8-S24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Gacci M. et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Male Urinary Incontinence. Eur Urol 2022; 82: 387-398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Tutolo M. et al. Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): Results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38: 710-718
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Carson CC. Artificial urinary sphincter: current status and future directions. Asian J Androl 2020; 22: 154-157
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 de Cógáin MR, Elliott DS. The impact of an antibiotic coating on the artificial urinary sphincter infection rate. J Urol 2013; 190: 113-117
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hüsch T. et al. Antibiotic Coating of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AMS 800): Is it Worthwhile?. Urology 2017; 103: 179-184
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Mühlstädt S, Hüsch T, Bauer RM. Differenzierte operative Therapie der männlichen Belastungsharninkontinenz – zwischen Wunsch und Wirklichkeit?. Der Urologe 2019; 58: 640-650
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Magera Jr JS, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter infection: causative organisms in a contemporary series. J Urol 2008; 180: 2475-2478
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Monn MF, Orr BM, Mellon MJ. Use of flexible cystoscopy at time of artificial urinary sphincter placement. Can J Urol 2019; 26: 9859-9862
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Henry GD. et al. A Multicenter Study on the Perineal Versus Penoscrotal Approach for Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Cuff Size and Control of Male Stress Urinary Incontinence. The Journal of Urology 2009; 182: 2404-2409
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Hoy NY, Rourke KF. Artificial Urinary Sphincter Outcomes in the "Fragile Urethra". Urology 2015; 86: 618-624
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Guralnick ML. et al. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy. J Urol 2002; 167: 2075-2078
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Kurtzman JT. et al. The role of transcorporal cuff placement in high-risk and ultra-high-risk patients: are they actually helpful?. World J Urol 2023; 41: 879-884
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Davenport MT. et al. Comparison of 3.5 cm and transcorporal cuffs in high-risk artificial urinary sphincter populations. Transl Androl Urol 2020; 9: 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Dropkin BM. et al. Are postoperative antibiotics necessary after artificial urinary sphincter insertion?. Can J Urol 2020; 27: 10437-10442
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Bates AS, Martin RM, Terry TR. Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 2015; 116: 623-633
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Llorens C, Pottek T. Urinary artificial sphincter ZSI 375 for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men: 5 and 7 years follow-up report. Urologia 2017; 84: 263-266
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Ostrowski I. et al. Preliminary outcomes of the European multicentre experience with the ZSI 375 artificial urinary sphincter for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men. Cent European J Urol 2019; 72: 263-269
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Castellan P. et al. Management of Urinary Incontinence Following Radical Prostatectomy: Challenges and Solutions. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2023; 19: 43-56
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Ye H. et al. Effectiveness and Complications of the AMS AdVance™ Male Sling System for the Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Urology 2018; 120: 197-204
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Roumeguère T. et al. The Virtue quadratic male sling for postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: 3-Year outcome measurements and a predictive model of surgical outcome from a European prospective observational study. Neurourol Urodyn 2022; 41: 456-467
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Malval B. et al. Long-term outcomes of I-Stop TOMS™ male sling implantation for post-prostatectomy incontinence management. Prog Urol 2017; 27: 1084-1090
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Del Favero L. et al. Long-term Functional Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction After AdVance and AdVanceXP Male Sling Surgery. Eur Urol Focus 2022; 8: 1408-1414
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Hoda MR. et al. Early results of a European multicentre experience with a new self-anchoring adjustable transobturator system for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in men. BJU Int 2013; 111: 296-303
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Esquinas C, Angulo JC. Effectiveness of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) to Treat Male Stress Incontinence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Adv Ther 2019; 36: 426-441
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Angulo JC. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) and male Readjustment Mechanical External (REMEEX) system for post-prostatectomy incontinence. World J Urol 2021; 39: 1083-1092
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Bauer RM. et al. Efficacy and complications of the adjustable sling system ArgusT for male incontinence: results of a prospective 2-center study. Urology 2015; 85: 316-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Larson T, Jhaveri H, Yeung LL. Adjustable continence therapy (ProACT) for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 2019; 38: 2051-2059
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Morey AF. et al. Standing cough test for evaluation of post-prostatectomy incontinence: a pilot study. Can J Urol 2017; 24: 8664-8669
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Najjari L. et al. Perineal ultrasound for diagnostics of male stress incontinence: comparative study on the application of urogynecological standards for men and women. Urologe A 2012; 51: 384-389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Hennessey DB, Hoag N, Gani J. Impact of bladder dysfunction in the management of post radical prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence-a review. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6 (Suppl. 02) S103-S111
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Krughoff K, Peterson AC. Clinical and Urodynamic Determinants of Earlier Time to Failure for the Artificial Urinary Sphincter. Urology 2023; 176: 200-205
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Bauer RM. et al. Impact of the 'repositioning test' on postoperative outcome of retroluminar transobturator male sling implantation. Urol Int 2013; 90: 334-338
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 García Cortés Á. et al. What is the impact of post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence on everyday quality of life? Linking Pad usage and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) for a COMBined definition (PICOMB definition). Neurourol Urodyn 2021; 40: 840-847
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Comiter C. Surgery for postprostatectomy incontinence: which procedure for which patient?. Nat Rev Urol 2015; 12: 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Fischer MC, Huckabay C, Nitti VW. The male perineal sling: assessment and prediction of outcome. J Urol 2007; 177: 1414-1418
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Torrey R. et al. Radiation history affects continence outcomes after advance transobturator sling placement in patients with post-prostatectomy incontinence. Urology 2013; 82: 713-717
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Kumar A. et al. Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence – what do patients choose?. J Urol 2009; 181: 1231-1235
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Gerhard JF, Aragona MS, Olianas R. Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: Male Sling or "best option" first?. Urologe A 2017; 56: 1559-1571
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar