Problems of classification and reporting of complications of surgical treatment of urinary incontinence in men

Stress urinary incontinence extremely negatively affects the quality of life of patients who underwent surgical treatment of malignant and benign tumors of the prostate. Surgical treatment of incontinence usually involves implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter or sling which can also cause complications. Reporting and classification of surgical complications after urinary incontinence treatment are important for systemization, evaluation, and comparison of different studies and techniques, and the current surgical Clavien-Dindo classification of complications does not take into account specifics of management of these patients and the role of infection. The developed classification is based on the principle of grading of complications depending on treatment used for its elimination (if it requires invasive intervention or not) and considers specifics of complications accompanied by infection.

1. Charalambous S., Trantafylidis A. Impact of urinary incontinence on quality of life. Pelviperineology 2009;28:51–3.

2. Avery J.C., Stocks N.P., Duggan P. et al. Identifying the quality of life effects of urinary incontinence with depression in an Australian population. BMC Urol 2013;13:11. DOI: 10.1186/1471­2490­13­11

3. Das A.K., Kucherov V., Glick L., Chung P. Male urinary incontinence after prostate disease treatment. Can J Urol 2020;27(S3):36–43.

4. Veliev E.I., Tomilov A.A. Modern capabilities of diagnosis and treatment of urinary incontinence in men. Moscow: Vidal’ Rus, 2020. 78 p. (In Russ.).

5. EAU Guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual Congress. Milan, March 2023.

6. Prebay Z.J., Foss H.E., Wang K.R., Chung P.H. A narrative review on surgical treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence. Transl Androl Urol 2023;12(5):874–86. DOI: 10.21037/tau­22­629

7. Viers B.R., Linder B.J., Rivera M.E. et al. Long­term quality of life and functional outcomes among primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter implantations in men with stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 2016;196(3):838–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2016.03.076

8. Incontinence. 7th edn. Eds.: P. Abrams, L. Cardoso, A. Wagg, A. Wein. International Continence Society, Bristol, UK, 2023.

9. Veliev E.I., Tomilov A.A., Golubtsova E.N. Long­term efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter AMS 800ТМ implantations. Vestnik urologii = Urology Herald 2021;9(1):14–21. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.21886/2308­6424­2021­9­1­14­21

10. Plata M., Zuluaga L., Santander J. et al. Performance of the artificial urinary sphincter implantation in men with urinary incontinence: Results from a contemporary long­term real­world nationwide analysis. Neurourol Urodyn 2022;41(7):1573–81. DOI: 10.1002/nau.25002

11. Scott F.B., Bradley W.E., Timm G.W. Treatment of urinary incontinence by an implantable prosthetic urinary sphincter. J Urol 1974;112(1):75–80.

12. Sandhu J.S., Breyer B., Comiter C. et al. Incontinence after Prostate Treatment: AUA/SUFU Guideline. J Urol 2019;202(2):369–78. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000000314

13. Léon P., Chartier­Kastler E., Rouprêt M. et al. Long­term functional outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter implantation in men with stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2015;115(6):951–7. DOI: 10.1111/bju.12848

14. Frazier R.L., Jones M.E., Hofer M.D. Artificial urinary sphincter complications: a narrative review. J Clin Med 2024;13(7):1913. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13071913

15. Cavalcanti A., Schul A. Editorial Comment: the impact of perioperative complications on favorable outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for post­prostatectomy incontinence. Int Braz J Urol 2020;464:640–1. DOI: 10.1590/s1677­5538.ibju.2019.0526.1

16. Webster G.D., Sherman N.D. Management of male incontinence following artificial urinary sphincter failure. Curr Opin Urol 2005;15(6):386–90. DOI: 10.1097/01.mou.0000186843.02388.9a

17. Bentellis I., El­Akri M., Cornu J.N. et al. Prevalence and risk factors of artificial urinary sphincter revision in nonneurological male patients. J Urol 2021;2065:1248–57. DOI: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001954

18. Schillebeeckx C., Deruyver Y., Beels E. et al. Long­term functional outcomes and patient satisfaction of artificial urinary sphincter implantation for male non­neurogenic incontinence: a retrospective study of 30­year experience in a tertiary centre. ICS 2021 Online. Melburn; 2021. Accessed on 06.11.2023. Available at: www.ics.org/2021/abstract/4

19. Linder B.J., Rivera M.E., Ziegelmann M.J., Elliott D.S. Long­term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology 2015;86(3):602–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2015.05.029

20. Van der A.F., Drake M.J., Kasyan G.R. et al.; Young Academic Urologists Functional Urology Group. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non­neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol 2013;63(4):681–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.11.034

21. Corrales­Acosta E., Corrales M., Arenas­Aquino A.E., Melgarejo-García G. Artificial urinary sphincter outcomes for post­radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence. A narrative review. Rev Mex Urol 2022;81(6):1–13. DOI: 10.48193/revistamexicanadeurologa.v81i6.826

22. Rehder P., Haab F., Cornu J.N. et al. Treatment of postprostatectomy male urinary incontinence with the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling suspension: 3­year follow­up. Eur Urol 2012;62(1):140–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2012.02.038

23. Cornu J.N., Sebe P., Ciofu C. The AdVance transobturator male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: clinical results of a prospective evaluation after a minimum follow­up of 6 months. Eur Urol 2009;56:923–7.

24. Rehder P., Mitterberger M.J., Pichler R. et al. The 1 year outcome of the transobturator retroluminal repositioning sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2010;106(11):1668–72. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464­410X.2010.09400.x

25. Bauer R.M., Mayer M.E., May F. et al. Complications of the AdVance Transobturator male sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2010;75(6):1494–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2009.12.012

26. Chung A.S.J., Suarez O.A., McCammon K.A. AdVance male sling. Transl Androl Urol 2017;6(4):674–81. DOI: 10.21037/tau.2017.07.29

27. Hübner W.A., Gallistl H., Rutkowski M., Huber E.R. Adjustable bulbourethral male sling: experience after 101 cases of moderate­to­severe male stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2011;107(5):777–82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464­410X.2010.09619.x

28. Siracusano S., Visalli F., Favro M. et al. Argus­T sling in the treatment of male urinary incontinence: short­term evaluation in 182 patients. Pelviperineology 2015;34:106–11.

29. Bochove­Overgaauw D.M., Schrier B.Ph. An adjustable sling for the treatment of all degrees of male stress urinary incontinence: retrospective evaluation of efficacy and complications after a minimal followup of 14 months. J Urol 2011;185(4):1363–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.11.075

30. Clavien P.A., Barkun J., de Oliveira M.L. et al. The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five­year experience. Ann Surg 2009;250(2):187–96. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2