(017) Comparing Complication Rates and Continence Control in Concurrent Dual Implantation of Inflatable Penile Prosthesis/Artificial Urinary Sphincter vs. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis/Male Sling: An Updated Comparative Pilot Study

Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and bulbourethral male sling are used frequently in the management of post prostatectomy urinary incontinence (UI) in men. Some surgeons used to combine an inflatable Penile Prosthesis (IPP) procedure at the same setting to treat concurrent erectile dysfunction (ED). Recent clinical trials have aimed to determine the comparative effectiveness between the male sling and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in men with urodynamic stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after prostate surgery, focusing on non-inferiority. We aim to compare continence control and complications rates in patients who underwent bulbourethral slings or AUS during IPP surgery via perineal approach. A retrospective chart review was done in a large tertiary center. Post prostatectomy patients who underwent perineal dual implantation IPP and AUS or bulbourethral sling for ED and UI purposes, between 2014 and 2022 were included. Clinical data, patients’ demographics were retrieved. Post-operative outcomes with regards to IPP complication rates, revision rates for IPP/ AUS / Male sling, and continence control at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year were collected and included in the analysis. Continence control rates were assessed by the number of pads used per day on subsequent follow up visits for both groups. A total of 32 patients met the inclusion criteria. 16 Patients underwent synchronous IPP and AUS insertion, whereas another 16 patients underwent IPP with bulbourethral sling procedure. Patient demographics, median follow up & complication rates are summarized below in Table 1. In both groups the procedure was done through a perineal approach. There was no significant difference in baseline data among groups. Complication rates between AUS devices and bulbourethral slings showed no statistically significant differences (12.5% vs 6.25% p= 0.22 respectively). Infection rates and need for revision also did not show any statistically significant differences. With regards to post-operative continence rates, both groups had comparable outcome with no significant differences (P = 0.81). Upon the 6 months follow up visit, the AUS group, 56% were pad free, 19% used 1 pad per day, 19% used 2 pads per day, and 6% used 3 pads or more per day, while in the sling group, 50% were pad free, 25% used 1 pad per day, 19% used 2 pads per day, and 6% used 3 pads or more per day. Patients were followed for a total of 1 year after the surgery. The combined insertion of IPP with either AUS or sling procedures has comparable outcomes with regards to continence rate and device- related complications. Each incontinence surgery should be chosen according to surgeon experience and specific patient indications. Further prospective studies on a larger sample of patients with longer follow up period are needed to solidify these findings and will guide patient's decision and preference for incontinence surgeries along with IPP once indicated. No.