Zachary J. Prebay

Background and Objective: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) can occur due to a variety of etiologies. For male patients specifically, SUI is typically thought of as iatrogenic secondary to intrinsic sphincter deficiency occurring after prostate surgery. Given the noted negative impact that SUI can have on a man's quality of life, multiple treatment options have been developed to improve symptoms. However, there is no "One-Size-Fits-All" approach to management of male SUI. In this narrative review, we sought to highlight some of the various procedures and devices available to treat men with bothersome SUI. Methods: This narrative review gathered primary resources through Medline search, and secondary resources by cross-referencing citations used in articles of interest. We started our investigation by searching for previous systematic reviews on male SUI and treatments for male SUI. Furthermore, we reviewed societal guidelines, such as the American Urological Association and Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine and Urogenital Reconstruction guidelines and the recently published European Urological Association guidelines. Our review focused on English-language full-length manuscripts when available. Key Content and Findings: We present multiple surgical options for men with SUI. This review focuses on surgical options including 5 fixed male slings, 3 adjustable male slings, 4 artificial urinary sphincters (AUS), and an adjustable balloon device. This review includes treatment options from across the globe, although not all included devices are available in the United States. Conclusions: A great variety of treatment options exist for men with SUI, although not all Federal Drug Administration (FDA) approved. Shared decision making is paramount to generate the greatest satisfaction for patients.

Background: Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) are the gold standard treatment for patients with stress urinary incontinence. However, risk factors for implant infection, complication, or re-intervention (removal, repair, replacement) are incompletely understood. We sought to understand the impact of various patient factors on the risk of device failure by leveraging a large, multi-national research database. Methods: We queried the TriNetX database for all adult patients undergoing AUS. We evaluated the impact of age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, diabetes (DM), smoking history, history of radiation therapy (RT), history of radical prostatectomy (RP) and history of urethroplasty on select clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was the need for re-intervention defined by current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Secondary outcomes included overall device complication rate and infection rate defined by international classification of diseases (ICD) codes. Analytics were performed on TriNetX which calculated risk ratios (RR) and Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival. We evaluated our outcomes first on the entire population and then repeated analyses for each individual comparison cohort using the remaining demographic variables to perform propensity score matching (PSM). Results: The overall rates of AUS re-intervention, complication and infection were 23.4%, 24.1% and 6.4%, respectively. KM analysis showed median AUS survival (no need for re-intervention) at 10.6 years and projected 20-year survival probability at 31.3%. Patients with a history of smoking or urethroplasty were at higher risk of AUS complication and re-intervention. Patients with DM or a history of RT were at higher risk of AUS infection. Patients with a history of RT were at higher risk of AUS complication. All risk factors besides race showed a difference in device removal itself. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the largest series to follow patients with an AUS. About one-quarter of AUS patients needed re-intervention. Multiple demographics place patients at increased risk of re-intervention, infection, or complication. These results can help guide patient selection and counseling with the goal of reducing complications.

BACKGROUND: Accurate staging at the time of prostate cancer diagnosis is fundamental to risk stratification and management counseling. Digital rectal exam (DRE) is foundational in clinical staging of prostate cancer, even with a known limited interexaminer agreement and poor sensitivity for detecting extraprostatic disease. We sought to evaluate the prognostic value of DRE for the presence of advanced pathologic features (APFs) following radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: All patients undergoing RP as primary treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer in the National Cancer Database between 2008 and 2014 were identified. Patients with additional malignancies, prior treatment with radiation or systemic therapy, incongruent clinical staging and DRE findings or without fully evaluable clinical staging were excluded. The primary outcome was the presence of postsurgical APFs, defined as positive surgical margins, nodal disease, or pathologic stage T3 or greater. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to account for prostate-specific antigen (PSA), biopsy grade group, percent of positive biopsy cores, and clinical stage. RESULTS: In total, 91,525 patients consisting of 69,182 cT1, 20,641 cT2, and 1702 cT3-T4 were included. The average age was 61.1 ± 7.0 years, and the average PSA was 8.6 ± 10.3 ng/ml. On multivariable analysis, cT3 and T4 were associated with the presence of APFs (odds ratio [OR] 11.12, p < .01 and 5.28, p = .04), however, cT2 was only slightly associated with the presence of APFs when compared with cT1 (OR 1.15, p < .01). Furthermore, cT2 was associated with more node-positive disease (OR 1.63, p < .01), positive margins (OR 1.06, p < .01), and more than or equal to pT3 disease (OR 1.22, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, advanced clinical stage as assessed by DRE was independently associated with an increasing risk of APFs. For individual APFs, the greatest effect is noticed between clinical stage and nodal positivity and less so between clinical stage and positive margins. DRE continues to hold value, particularly for patients with locally advanced disease and potential lymph node disease.