Objectives: Feasibility study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) after failed surgical devices for male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Materials and Methods: Thirty patients were implanted with ATOMS after they were implanted with surgical device/s previously. SUI severity was evaluated as dryness (0–1 pad/day), mild (2 pads/day), moderate (3–5 pads/day), or severe (≥6 pads/day). Change in pad-test and pad-count after adjustment, operative parameters, patient satisfaction, and number and grade of complications were investigated. Results: Previous failed treatment methods were artificial urinary sphincter (AUS; n = 19), Advance (n = 10), and Virtue (n = 1). Six cases had multiple previous treatments. Preoperative SUI was mild 6 (20%), moderate 11 (36.7%), and severe 13 (43.3%). Median pad-test decreased from 435 mL baseline to 10 mL after adjustment and pad-count from 4 to 0. Dry-rate was 76.7 and 83.3% declared satisfied. Postoperative SUI distribution was mild in 3 (10%) and moderate in 4 (13.3%). No patient had urinary retention after catheter removal. Complications presented in 4 (13.3%; 3 grade-I, 1 grade-II). After a median of 24 months follow-up, no system experienced infection or urethral erosion and 1 (3.3%) was removed for inefficacy. Conclusion: Based on short-term efficacy and patient satisfaction, ATOMS can be a realistic alternative for male SUI after other failed systems, including AUS. The absence of urethral erosion and limited infective problems makes this alternative attractive for cases with previous failed treatments.

Keywords:
Stress urinary incontinence, Adjustable transobturator male system, Artificial urinary sphincter, Male sling, Rescue surgery, Fragile urethra
1.
Suardi N, Gallina A, Lista G, Gandaglia G, Abdollah F, Capitanio U, Dell'Oglio P, Nini A, Salonia A, Montorsi F, Briganti A: Impact of adjuvant radiation therapy on urinary continence recovery after radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2014; 65: 546–551.
2.
Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN; 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 non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol 2013; 63: 681–689.
3.
Andreasson A, Fall M, Persson E, Stranne J, Peeker R: High revision rate following artificial urethral sphincter implantation. Scand J Urol 2014; 48: 544–548.
4.
Suh YS, Ko KJ, Kim TH, Sung HH, Lee KS: Long-term outcomes of primary implantation and revisions of artificial urinary sphincter in men with stress urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2017; 36: 1930–1937.
5.
Linder BJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS: Evaluating success rates after artificial urinary sphincter placement: a comparison of clinical definitions. Urology 2017;; 113: 220–224.
6.
Welk BK, Herschorn S: The male sling for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a review of contemporary sling designs and outcomes. BJU Int 2012; 109: 328–344.
7.
Bauer RM, Mayer ME, May F, Gratzke C, Buchner A, Soljanik I, Bastian PJ, Stief CG, Gozzi C: Complications of the AdVance transobturator male sling in the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence. Urology 2010; 75: 1494–1498.
8.
Van Bruwaene S, De Ridder D, Van der Aa F: The use of sling vs sphincter in post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. BJU Int 2015; 116: 330–342.
9.
Rehder P, Gozzi C: Transobturator sling suspension for male urinary incontinence including post-radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2007; 52: 860–866.
10.
Bauer W, Karik M, Schramek P: The self--anchoring transobturator male sling to treat  stress urinary incontinence in men: a new sling, a surgical approach and anatomical findings in a cadaveric study. BJU Int 2005; 95: 1364–1366.
11.
Seweryn J, Bauer W, Ponholzer A, Schramek P: Initial experience and results with a new adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. J Urol 2012; 187: 956–961.
12.
Angulo JC, Arance I, Esquinas C, Dorado JF, Marcelino JP, Martins FE: Outcome measures of adjustable transobturator male system with pre-attached scrotal port for male stress urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a prospective study. Adv Ther 2017; 34: 1173–1183.
13.
Hoda MR, Primus G, Fischereder K, Von Heyden B, Mohammed N, Schmid N, Moll V, Hamza A, Karsch JJ, Brössner C, Fornara P, Bauer W: 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.
14.
Angulo JC, Cruz F, Esquinas C, Arance I, Manso M, Rodríguez A, Pereira J, Ojea A, Carballo M, Rabassa M, Teyrouz A, Escribano G, Rodríguez E, Teba F, Celada G, Madurga B, Álvarez-Ossorio JL, Marcelino JP, Martins FE: Treatment of male stress urinary incontinence with the adjustable transobturator male system: outcomes of a multi-center Iberian study. Neurourol Urodyn 2018; 37: 1458–1466.
15.
Kumar A, Litt ER, Ballert KN, Nitti VW: Artificial urinary sphincter versus male sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence. What do patients choose? J Urol 2009; 181: 1231–1235.
16.
Soljanik I, Becker AJ, Stief CG, Gozzi C, Bauer RM: Repeat retrourethral transobturator sling in the management of recurrent postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence after failed first male sling. Eur Urol 2010; 58: 767–772.
17.
Abdou A, Cornu JN, Sèbe P, Ciofu C, Peyrat L: [Salvage therapy with artificial urinary sphincter after AdvanceTM male sling failure for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a first clinical experience] Prog Urol 2012; 22: 650–656.
18.
Lentz AC, Peterson AC, Webster GD: Outcomes following artificial sphincter implantation after prior unsuccessful male sling. J Urol 2012; 187: 2149–2153.
19.
Ajay D, Zhang H, Gupta S, Selph JP, Belsante MJ, Lentz AC, Webster GD, Peterson AC: The artificial urinary sphincter is superior to a secondary transobturator male sling in cases of a primary sling failure. J Urol 2015; 194: 1038–1042.
20.
Hüsch T, Kretschmer A, Thomsen F, Kronlachner D, Kurosch M, Obaje A, Anding R, Pottek T, Rose A, Olianas R, Friedl A, Hübner W, Homberg R, Pfitzenmaier J, Grein U, Queissert F, Naumann CM, Schweiger J, Wotzka C, Nyarangi-Dix J, Hofmann T, Ulm K, Bauer RM, Haferkamp A: Debates on Male Incontinence (DOMINO)-Project. Risk factors for failure of male slings and artificial urinary sphincters: results from a large Middle European cohort study. Urol Int 2017; 99: 14–21.
21.
Linder BJ, Piotrowski JT, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS: Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement. J Urol 2015; 194: 716–720.
22.
Brant WO, Martins FE: Artificial urinary sphincter. Transl Androl Urol 2017; 6: 682–694.
23.
Chung E, Cartmill R: Diagnostic challenges in the evaluation of persistent or recurrent urinary incontinence after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients -after prostatectomy. BJU Int 2013; 112(suppl 2): 32–35.
24.
Dobberfuhl AD, Comiter CV: A Systematic approach to the evaluation and management of the failed artificial urinary sphincter. Curr Urol Rep 2017; 18: 18.
25.
Guralnick ML, Miller E, Toh KL, Webster GD: Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy. J Urol 2002; 167: 2075–2078.
26.
Roth CC, Winters JC: Insertion of artificial urinary sphincter with preservation of bulbospongiosus muscle in patients at risk for sphincter erosion: an assessment of patient satisfaction. Ochsner J 2006; 6: 54–58.
27.
Hoy NY, Rourke KF: Artificial urinary sphincter outcomes in the “Fragile Urethra”. Urology 2015; 86: 618–624.
28.
Kretschmer A, Hübner W, Sandhu JS, Bauer RM: Evaluation and management of postprostatectomy incontinence: a systematic review of current literature. Eur Urol Focus 2016; 2: 245–259.
29.
Mühlstädt S, Friedl A, Mohammed N, Schumann A, Weigand K, Kawan F, Göllert C, Kahlert C, Theil G, Fischer K, Fornara P: Five-year experience with the adjustable transobturator male system for the treatment of male stress urinary incontinence: a single-center evaluation. World J Urol 2017; 35: 145–151.
30.
Friedl A, Mühlstädt S, Zachoval R, Giammò A, Kivaranovic D, Rom M, Fornara P, Brössner C: Long-term outcome of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS): results of a European multicentre study. BJU Int 2017; 119: 785–792.
31.
Esquinas C, Arance I, Pamplona J, Moraga A, Dorado JF, Angulo JC: Treatment of stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy with the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS®) with preattached scrotal port. Actas Urol Esp 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acuro.2018.02.005
, Epub ahead of print.
32.
Krause J, Tietze S, Behrendt W, Nast J, Hamza A: Reconstructive surgery for male stress urinary incontinence: Experiences using the ATOMS(®) system at a single center. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW 2014; 3:Doc15.
33.
Friedl A, Mühlstädt S, Rom M, Kivaranovic D, Mohammed N, Fornara P, Brössner C: Risk factors for treatment failure with the adjustable transobturator male system incontinence device: who will succeed, who will fail? Results of a multicenter study. Urology 2016; 90: 189–194.
34.
Raj GV, Peterson AC, Toh KL, Webster GD: Outcomes following revisions and secondary implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol 2005; 173: 1242–1245.
35.
Linder BJ, de Cogain M, Elliott DS: Long-term device outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation following prior explantation for erosion or infection. J Urol 2014; 191: 734–738.
36.
Lai HH, Boone TB: Complex artificial urinary sphincter revision and reimplantation cases–how do they fare compared to virgin cases? J Urol 2012; 187: 951–955.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.