Comparison of 3.5 cm and transcorporal cuffs in high-risk artificial urinary sphincter populations

Michael T. Davenport, Abdulhadi M. Akhtar, Nabeel A. Shakir, Adam S. Baumgarten, Yooni A. Yi, Rachel L. Bergeson, Ellen E. Ward, Allen F. Morey


Background: The transcorporal (TC) artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has traditionally been utilized in high-risk patients with urethral atrophy or prior urethral erosion. The 3.5 cm AUS cuff has been developed for use in a similar population. We compared the outcomes of TC AUS and 3.5 cm cuff patients to assess whether the TC approach was protective against urethral complications.
Methods: We performed a retrospective review for all men who underwent TC AUS and 3.5 cm AUS implantation by a single surgeon from 2007 to 2018 at a tertiary medical center. Demographic and outcomes data were collected and analyzed after database review to evaluate for rates of urethral erosion. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify co-morbid factors associated with urethral erosion.
Results: In our database of 625 AUS patients, we identified 59 (9%) men with TC AUS and 168 (27%) having a 3.5 cm cuff. Over a median follow-up time of 49 months, 28 (47%) men with TC cuffs developed urethral erosion compared with 25 (15%) men with a 3.5 cm cuff. On univariate analysis, a TC cuff was associated with increased odds of erosion (OR 6.65, 95% CI: 3.20–14.4, P<0.0001) when compared with a 3.5 cm cuff. On multivariate analysis, TC cuffs continued to portend significantly increased odds of cuff erosion.
Conclusions: With longer follow up, TC AUS may not be as protective against urethral complications as previously described.