A narrative review on synchronous concurrent versus delayed sequential surgery in the artificial urinary sphincter and penile prosthesis implantation.

Abstract

Background and objective: In a patient who complains of both stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and erectile dysfunction (ED), prosthetic surgery with a urinary continence device and penile prosthesis implant can offer a definitive solution to address both problems. The AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) device is considered the standard of care to restore SUI while the inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device is thought to be superior to a malleable prosthesis to provide a more natural penile erection with higher patient satisfaction rates. The following article explores the current understanding of AMS 800 AUS surgery and IPP device in treating males with concurrent SUI and ED as well as evaluates the advantages and disadvantages of concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed or staged device implantation.

Methods: The available literature on AUS and IPP implantation was reviewed on PubMed and Embase databases between 1 January 2000 and 1 December 2022. This narrative review evaluates relevant key features pertaining to prosthetic surgery with an emphasis on arguments for concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed sequential surgery for AUS and IPP devices. Additionally, this paper provides a brief surgical description of the techniques and potential complications relating to both prosthetic procedures.

Key content and findings: While a great deal is known about the excellent outcomes of both AUS and IPP implantation, there is limited literature published on the outcomes of dual AUS and IPP surgery. The decision to proceed with concurrent synchronous dual vs. delayed sequential two-stage implants is likely determined by the patient's preference, the surgeon's expertise, and the availability of prostheses. In either situation, patients should be counselled regarding the advantages and disadvantages of undergoing synchronous concurrent vs. delayed sequential implants and associated surgical challenges are likely dependent on the patient's anatomy and the surgeon's preference.

Conclusions: For carefully selected patients with SUI and ED, dual implantation of AUS and IPP provides a definitive treatment to address both conditions at the same time. Patients should be counselled regarding the advantages and disadvantages of synchronous concurrent vs. sequentially delayed implants while technical considerations regarding the sequence of prosthetic device surgery are likely dependent on the patient's factors and the surgeon's preference and surgical expertise.