Which revision strategy is the best for non-mechanical failure of male artificial urinary sphincter?

Persistence or recurrence of stress urinary incontinence (prSUI) after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation may be secondary to non-mechanical failure (NOMECA). It have for long been assumed to result from urethral atrophy. Its existence is now debated. As the pathophysiology of NOMECA is not elucidated, the most appropriate management remains unclear. We aimed to compare the several revision techniques for NOMECA of AUS in men. NOMECA was defined as prSUI, with normally functioning device, no erosion, infection or fluid loss. Exclusion criteria were neurogenic SUI, revision or explantation for other causes. From 1991 to 2022, 143 AUS revisions for NOMECA, including 99 cuff DOWNSIZING, 10 cuff repositioning (RELOC), 13 TANDEM-CUFF placement, 18 cuff changing (CHANGE), three increasing balloon pressure (BALLOON-UP), were performed in 10 centers. BALLOON-UP patients weren’t included in comparative analysis due to small sample size. All components could be changed during the revision. Patients were also categorized in COMPLETE-CHANGE vs. PARTIAL-CHANGE of the device. The three-months complete continence rate was 70.8% with a significant difference between RELOC and DOWNSIZING groups (p = 0.04). COMPLETE CHANGE was significantly associated with complete continence status at three months in multivariate analysis (83.3% vs. 63.3%, OR = 2.7; CI 95% [1.1–7.1], p = 0.03). Estimated five-year reoperation-free and explantation-free survival were respectively 63.4% and 75.9% (p = 0.16; p = 0.30). Those were significantly longer in COMPLETE-CHANGE vs PARTIAL-CHANGE (82.2% vs. 69.6%, p = 0.03); (71.2% vs. 58.2%, p = 0.047). AUS revision for prSUI due to NOMECA yields satisfactory outcomes regardless of the technique used. We observed better functional outcomes when repositioning the new cuff. COMPLETE-CHANGE may improve functional outcomes, explantation-free and reoperation-free survivals.