Introduction and hypothesis: The objective was to compare the outcomes of the ACT® device with those of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) AMS 800 in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) due to sphincter deficiency in women.
Methods: All the women who underwent surgical treatment for SUI due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency from 2007 to 2017 were included in a single-center retrospective study. The primary endpoint was the functional outcome. Perioperative functional parameters of the two groups were compared.
Results: Twenty-five patients underwent an ACT® implantation and 36 an AUS implantation. Patients in the AUS group were younger (62.9 vs 70.4 years; p = 0.03) with less comorbidity (ASA Score = 3 in 12.1% vs 33.3%; p = 0.005). Operative time and hospital stay were shorter in the ACT® group (45.7 vs 206.1 min; p < 0.001; 1.7 vs 7 days; p < 0.001 respectively). There was a higher rate of intraoperative complications in the AUS group (47% vs 8%; p < 0.001) but the rates of postoperative complications were similar between both groups. The ACT® was associated with an increased risk of urinary retention (20% vs 2.8%; p = 0.04). Results were in favor of AUS for: decrease in USP stress incontinence subscore (-7.6 vs -3.2; p < 0.001), number of pads per 24 h (- 4.6 vs -2.3; p = 0.002), PGII scale (PGII = 1: 61.1% vs 12%; p < 0.001), and cure rate (71.4% vs 21.7%; p < 0.001).
Conclusions: In the present series, keeping in mind the significantly different baseline characteristics, AUS implantation was associated with better functional outcomes than the ACT® in female patients with SUI due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency, but with a higher intraoperative complications rate, longer operative time, and a longer stay.
Keywords: Artificial urinary sphincter; Sphincter deficiency; Surgery; Urinary incontinence.