[AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter implantation: can the penoscrotal approach constitute an alternative to the perineal approach?].

Objective: To compare the short-term results of penoscrotal and perineal artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

Patients And Methods: From May 2005 to February 2007, 37 artificial urinary sphincters were implanted successively, via a penoscrotal approach in 16 cases and via a perineal approach in 21 cases. Incontinence was secondary to prostate surgery (n=36) and pelvic trauma (n=1). Seventeen patients had a history of external beam radiotherapy. The times and modalities of activation of the sphincter were identical in the two groups.

Results: The mean age of the patients, the mean operating time, the mean catheterization duration, the mean hospital stay and the mean postoperative follow-up were equivalent in the two groups. Six urethral erosions (37.5%) and one scrotal erosion due to the pump (6.6%) were observed in the penoscrotal group and infection of the sphincter in two patients (9.5%) and pump migration in another two patients (9.5%), but no urethral erosions were observed in the perineal group. The success rate without revision was 56% in the penoscrotal group and 71.5% in the perineal group.

Conclusion: The perineal approach is the reference incision, as the penoscrotal approach is associated with a high rate of erosion. The penoscrotal urethral approach can constitute an alternative when the bulbar urethra cannot be used.