Effectiveness of artificial urinary sphincter to treat stress incontinence after prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Abstract

Background Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS) has always been considered the gold standard for surgical treatment of male non-neurogenic Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI). The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate AUS’s effectiveness in treating male SUI, as described in the literature. Methods Two independent reviewers used PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang Data, and VIP databases, to find the efficacy of artificial urethral sphincter in treating SUI after male prostate surgery. We excluded studies on female urinary incontinence. The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy based on the degree of dry rate after AUS AMS 800™: postoperative complete dry was defined as no pad use per day. Postoperative social dry was defined as 0–1 pad per day. The secondary goal was to analyze the use of AUS AMS 800™ to improve SUI and to calculate the degree of influence by analyzing the number of pads and postoperative quality of life. And methodologic quality of the overall body of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) guidelines. Results The data in this paper are mostly based on prospective or retrospective cohort studies without control groups. Fortunately, most studies have the same criteria to assess effectiveness. The pooled data of 1271 patients from 19 studies (6 prospective cohort studies, 12 retrospective cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) showed that: the number of pads used (pads/ day) after AUS was significantly reduced by about 4 (P < 0.001) and the quality of life was improved (P < 0.001).In addition, data analysis showed a high degree of heterogeneity between studies. According to the severity of baseline SUI, subgroup analysis was performed on the postoperative dry rate and social dry rate. Although heterogeneity was reduced, I2 is still above 50%, considering that heterogeneity may not be related to the severity of SUI. The random effect model was used for data analysis: the dry rate was about 52% (P < 0.001), and the social dry rate was about 82% (P < 0.001). The evidence level of GRADE of dry rate is very low, the evidence level of social dry rate and Pads use (pads/day) is Moderate, and the evidence level of Quality of life is low. Conclusion Although the evidence in this paper is based on descriptive studies and limited follow-up, the results show that AUS is effective in treating urinary incontinence and can improve patients’ quality of life.