Peri-operative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis
Authors:
- Tarun JellaTJTarun Jella
- Austin FernstrumAFAustin Fernstrum
- Michael CallegariMCMichael Callegari
- Amr MahranAMAmr Mahran
- Benjamin PetrinicBPBenjamin Petrinic
- Al RayARAl Ray
- Heba ElghalbanHEHeba Elghalban
- Mostafa AbdelrazekMAMostafa Abdelrazek
- Aram LoebALAram Loeb
- Nannan ThirumavalavanNTNannan Thirumavalavan
- Shubham GuptaSGShubham Gupta
- Wade MunceyWMWade Muncey
Open Access
- 1 February 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by AVES YAYINCILIK A.Ş. in Urology Research and Practice
- Vol. 47 (5) , 427-435
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate differences in perioperative clinical outcomes in men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in primary versus replacement settings. Secondarily, we aimed to identify patient-related factors contributing to complications associated with AUS placement. Materials and Methods: A review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed between 2010 and 2018 identifying males undergoing AUS implantation. Subjects were further subdivided into primary implantation or removal/replacement of AUS simultaneously via current procedural terminology codes 53445 and 53447, respectively. 30-Day postoperative outcomes were compared between cohorts using t-test and Fisher’s exact test. The relationship between patient factors and complications was evaluated using logistic regression. Results: A total of 1,892 patients were identified: 1,445 primary AUS placement and 447 AUS replacement procedures. Patients undergoing AUS replacement were statistically older than those undergoing primary implantation (71.4 vs 69.7 years, P < .001). AUS replacement procedures were associated with an increased rate of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) compared to primary procedures (1.3% vs 0.4%, P ¼ .042). There were no differences identified between cohorts for deep SSI, cardiopulmonary complications, reoperation, operative time, or length of stay. Logistic regression demonstrated that higher body mass index was found to be independent risk factors for any complications, and diabetes mellitus was associated with increased risk of AUS-related readmission. Conclusion: Within the perioperative period, patients undergoing replacement AUS have an increased risk of superficial SSI compared to primary AUS implantation. These findings can assist with appropriate perioperative counseling of patients undergoing primary and replacement AUS implantations. Cite this article as: Jella T, Fernstrum A, Callegari M, et al. Perioperative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis. Turk J Urol. 2021; 47(5): 427-435Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Improved Surgical Outcomes for ACS NSQIP Hospitals Over TimeAnnals of Surgery, 2016
- Measuring Surgical Quality: a National Clinical Registry Versus Administrative Claims DataJournal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, 2014
- The Artificial Urinary Sphincter After a Quarter of a Century: A Critical Systematic Review of Its Use in Male Non-neurogenic IncontinenceEuropean Urology, 2013
- A Comparison of Clinical Registry Versus Administrative Claims Data for Reporting of 30-Day Surgical ComplicationsAnnals of Surgery, 2012
- Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters ( AUS ): the development of alternatives to the current AUS deviceBJU International, 2012
- Surgical Practice Patterns for Male Urinary Incontinence: Analysis of Case Logs from Certifying American UrologistsJournal of Urology, 2012
- Complex Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision and Reimplantation Cases—How do They Fare Compared to Virgin Cases?Journal of Urology, 2012
- Long-Term Durability and Functional Outcomes Among Patients With Artificial Urinary Sphincters: A 10-Year Retrospective Review From the University of MichiganJournal of Urology, 2008
- 13 Years of Experience With Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation at Baylor College of MedicineJournal of Urology, 2007
- OUTCOMES FOLLOWING REVISIONS AND SECONDARY IMPLANTATION OF THE ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTERJournal of Urology, 2005