ATOMS (Adjustable Transobturator Male System) Is an Effective and Safe Second-Line Treatment Option for Recurrent Urinary Incontinence after Implantation of an AdVance/AdVance XP Fixed Male Sling. A Multicenter Cohort Analysis

(1) Background: This study examined outcomes of second-line ATOMS implantation after failure of the fixed male sling (FMS) AdVance/AdVance XP. (2) Methods: A retrospective multicenter cohort analysis was carried out in men implanted with an ATOMS between 2011 and 2020 after failure of an AdVance/AdVance XP. Success was assessed on the basis of objective (dryness, 0–1 pad/24 h or >20 g/24 h pad test) and subjective results (PGI-I). We performed the Wilcoxon rank sum test, Fisher’s exact test, logistic regression, and multivariate analysis. (3) Results: The study included 88 patients from 9 centers with a mean age of 71.3 years. No Clavien–Dindo > II complications occurred within the first 3 months after ATOMS implantation. A total of 10 cases (9%) required revision in the ensuing clinical course. After a mean follow-up of 42.5 months, 76.1% achieved social continence, and 56.8% used no pads at all. Mean urine leakage/24 h dropped from 422 g (3.9 pads) to 38 g (0.69 pads) and the mean ICIQ-SF decreased from 16.25 to 5.3 (p < 0.0001). PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures) showed improvement in 98.9% of cases, and 63.6% gave a “very much better” PGI-I rating. Multivariate analysis identified a lower probability of achieving maximum satisfaction for the following factors: the AdVance XP as first-line therapy (OR 0.35), a lower ICIQ-SF question 1 (OR 0.26), status post-irradiation (OR 0.14), and more severe pain prior to ATOMS implantation (OR 0.51). (4) Conclusions: Implantation of an ATOMS is an effective and safe second-line treatment option for recurrent urinary incontinence after implantation of an AdVance/AdVance XP sling. High patient satisfaction was demonstrated in a long-term follow-up.

Prior Placement of Male Urethral Slings Can Increase the Need for Revision of Artificial Urinary Sphincters

Background: Recurrent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) following male sling can be managed surgically with artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion. Prior small, single-center retrospective studies have not demonstrated an association between having failed a sling procedure and worse AUS outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of primary AUS placement in men who had or had not undergone a previous sling procedure. Methods: A retrospective review of all AUS devices implanted at a single academic center during 2000–2018 was performed. After excluding secondary AUS placements, revision and explant procedures, 135 patients were included in this study, of which 19 (14.1%) patients had undergone prior sling procedures. Results: There was no significant difference in demographic characteristics between patients undergoing AUS placement with or without a prior sling procedure. Average follow up time was 28.0 months. Prior sling was associated with shorter overall device survival, with an increased likelihood of requiring revision or replacement of the device (OR 4.2 (1.3–13.2), p = 0.015) as well as reoperation for any reason (OR 3.5 (1.2–9.9), p = 0.019). While not statistically significant, patients with a prior sling were more likely to note persistent incontinence at most recent follow up (68.8% vs. 42.7%, p = 0.10). Conclusions: Having undergone a prior sling procedure is associated with shorter device survival and need for revision or replacement surgery. When considering patients for sling procedures, patients should be counseled regarding the potential for worse AUS outcomes should they require additional anti-incontinence procedures following a failed sling.