RAMB - AGOSTO 2017

21 / 70

Truzzi JC et al.
678 Rev Assoc Med Bras 2017; 63(8):664-680
• • It will be presented according to study design (ran-
domized controlled trial, clinical trial, before-and-af-
ter trial).
• • It will include the following components: number of
patients, type of comparison, magnitude (NNT), and
precision (95CI).
Annex VII
Complications
Clinical question
What is the best strategy against suspected erosion or
extrusion, infection and urethral atrophy?
Structured question (PICO)
• • P atient – Patient with urinary incontinence due to
sphincter deficiency.
• • Intervention – Artificial urinary sphincter.
• • Comparison – None.
• • Outcome – Urethral erosion and infection.
Data extraction
The results obtained from the included studies referred
to the number of patients who obtained benefits or harm
from one of the two approaches.
Data analysis and expression
The results are expressed as absolute risk reduction or
increase with their respective 95% confidence intervals.
The number needed to treat (NNT) or number needed to
harm (NNH) will be calculated.
Description of evidence
The available evidence will follow some principles to
be displayed:
• • It will be shown based on benefit or harm outcomes.
• • It will be presented according to study design (random-
ized controlled trial, clinical trial, before-and-after trial).
• • It will include the following components: number of
patients, type of comparison, magnitude (NNT), and
precision (95CI).
References
1. Elliott DS, Barrett DM. Mayo Clinic long-term analysis of the functional
durability of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: a review of 323 cases.
J Urol. 1998; 159(4):1206-8.
2. Lee R, Te AE, Kaplan SA, Sandhu JS. Temporal trends in adoption of and
indications for the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2009; 181(6):2622-7.
3. Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Chaikin DC, Weiss JP, VerhaarenM. The pathophysiology
of post-radical prostatectomy incontinence: a clinical and video urodynamic
study. J Urol. 2000; 163(6):1767-70.
4. Marks JL, Light JK. Management of urinary incontinence after prostatectomy
with the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 1989; 142(2 Pt 1):302-4.
5. Pérez LM, Webster GD. Successful outcome of artificial urinary sphincters
in men with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence despite adverse
implantation features. J Urol. 1992; 148(4):1166-70.
6. AMS 800™ Urinary Control System For Male Patients. Operating Room
Manual [cited 2017 Apr 13]. Available from:
assets/files/1002487_r04_AMS800_OR_Manual.pdf.
7. Yafi FA, DeLay KJ, Stewart C, Chiang J, Sangkum P, Hellstrom WJ. Device
survival after primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter for
male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2017; 197(3 Pt 1):759-765.
8. Wilson SK, Aliotta PJ, Salem EA, Mulcahy JJ. New enhancements of the scro-
tal one-incision technique for placement of artificial urinary sphincter al-
low proximal cuff placement. J Sex Med. 2010; 7(10):3510-5.
9. Guralnick ML, Miller E, Toh KL, Webster GD. Transcorporal artificial urinary
sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral
atrophy. J Urol. 2002; 167(5):2075-8; discussion 2079.
10. Gousse AE, Madjar S, Lambert MM, Fishman IJ. Artificial urinary sphincter
for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: long-term subjective
results. J Urol. 2001; 166(5):1755-8.
11. Flynn BJ, Webster GD. Evaluation and surgical management of intrinsic
sphincter deficiency after radical prostatectomy. Rev Urol. 2004; 6(4):180-6.
12. Furlow WL, Barrett DM. Recurrent or persistent urinary incontinence in
patients with the artificial urinary sphincter: diagnostic considerations and
management. J Urol. 1985; 133(5):792-5.
13. Bugeja S, Ivaz SL, Frost A, Andrich DE, Mundy AR. Urethral atrophy after
implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: fact or fiction? BJU Int. 2016;
117(4):669-76.
14. Wang R, McGuire EJ, He C, Faerber GJ, Latini JM. Long-term outcomes after
primary failures of artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Urology. 2012;
79(4):922-8.
15. Webster GD, Sherman ND. Management of male incontinence following
artificial urinary sphincter failure. Curr Opin Urol. 2005; 15(6):386-90.
16. Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN; Young Academic
Urologists Functional Urology Group. The artificial urinary sphincter after
a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-
neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013; 63(4):681-9.
17. Raj GV, Peterson AC, Toh KL, Webster GD. Outcomes following revisions
and secondary implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2005;
173(4):1242-5.
18. Lai HH, Hsu EI, Teh BS, Butler EB, Boone TB. 13 years of experience with
artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine. J
Urol. 2007; 177(3):1021-5.
19. Agarwal DK, Linder BJ, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter urethral
erosions: temporal patterns, management, and incidence of preventable
erosions. Indian J Urol. 2017; 33(1):26-9.
20. McGeady JB, McAninch JW, Truesdale MD, Blaschko SD, Kenfield S, Brey-
er BN. Artificial urinary sphincter placement in compromised urethras and
survival: a comparison of virgin, radiated and reoperative cases. J Urol. 2014;
192(6):1756-61.
21. Brant WO, Erickson BA, Elliott SP, Powell C, Alsikafi N, McClung C, et al.
Risk factors for erosion of artificial urinary sphincters: a multicenter
prospective study. Urology. 2014; 84(4):934-8.
22. Linder BJ, de Cogain M, Elliott DS. Long-term device outcomes of artificial
urinary sphincter reimplantation following prior explantation for erosion
or infection. J Urol. 2014; 191(3):734-8.
23. Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence. Available
from:
evidence-march-2009/.
24. Guyatt G, Gutterman D, Baumann MH, Addrizzo-Harris D, Hylek EM,
Phillips B, et al. Grading strength of recommendations and quality of
evidence in clinical guidelines: report from an American college of chest
physicians task force. Chest. 2006; 129(1):174-81.
25. Smith PJ, Hudak SJ, Scott JF, Zhao LC, Morey AF. Transcorporal artificial
urinary sphincter cuff placement is associated with a higher risk of
postoperative urinary retention. Can J Urol. 2013; 20(3):6773-7.
26. Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM. Long-
term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial