Surgery outcomes for men with urinary issues after prostate removal

What is it about?

This systematic review examines surgical outcomes for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in patients with detrusor overactivity (DO) after prostatectomy. The analysis included 11 studies involving 792 patients, 29% of whom had DO before undergoing SUI surgery. The overall success rate of SUI surgery was 69%, with a failure rate of 26%. Patients with DO experienced a higher failure rate (34%), although this difference was not statistically significant. Among surgical options, the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) demonstrated better outcomes compared to slings for patients with DO. The review acknowledges limitations such as variability in reported outcomes and the quality of included studies. The authors conclude that while SUI surgery remains a viable option for patients with DO, these individuals should be informed about the increased risk of treatment failure and the potential need for additional interventions. They stress the importance of conducting high-quality research with standardized definitions to improve understanding of surgical outcomes in this patient group.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This research is important because it investigates the outcomes of male incontinence surgery in patients with preoperative detrusor overactivity (DO), a condition affecting a significant portion of men after radical prostatectomy. Understanding the impact of DO on surgical outcomes is crucial for improving patient care and managing expectations. The study's findings contribute to the limited body of evidence on this topic, providing valuable insights for urologists and patients when considering surgical options for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostatectomy. This research helps address the knowledge gap in the optimal management of men with DO prior to male incontinence surgery. Key Takeaways: 1. Surgical Outcomes: The review did not show a statistically significant higher failure rate of male incontinence surgery in patients with DO, although the failure rate was higher in this group compared to those without DO. 2. Device Comparison: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) subgroup had significantly better postoperative outcomes compared to the sling group in patients with preoperative DO, suggesting that AUS may be a more suitable option for these patients. 3. Patient Counseling: Patients with DO on preoperative urodynamics who are eligible for male incontinence surgery should not be denied surgery but should be counseled appropriately about the risks and potential need for subsequent treatment to manage expectations.