title: Foley or Fix: A Comparative Analysis of Reparative Procedures at the Time of Explantation of Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Cuff Erosion.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To examine artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuff erosion intraoperative management methods: Foley catheter placement, abbreviated urethroplasty (AU), or mobilization with primary urethral anastomosis (PA). We reviewed these options to compare postoperative complications and probability of AUS reimplantation.
  
  
  METHODS
  Medical records of patients treated for AUS cuff erosion from 2005 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. We divided patients into 3 groups based on intraoperative management of the urethra: Foley only, AU, or PA. Patient characteristics, operative times, outcomes, complications, and reimplantation factors were recorded and analyzed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Seventy-five patients with a median age of 77 years (72-83) were treated for AUS cuff erosion. Fifty-two underwent Foley placement, 8 AU, and 15 PA. Mean follow-up was 13 months (0-106). Severe erosions were more common in the PA group than Foley or AU (100% vs 37%, 100% vs 38%, P <.001, P <.001, respectively). Severe erosions treated with Foley were more likely to develop strictures than mild erosions (38% vs 5%, P = .009). Tandem cuff patients treated with Foley were more likely to develop diverticuli than single cuff patients (33% vs 4%, P = .016). There was no difference in probability of reimplantation between PA and Foley or AU (63% vs 69%, 63% vs 33%, P = .748, P = .438, respectively).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Foley catheter placement alone may represent suboptimal management for severe or tandem cuff erosions due to increased risk of urethral complications. Urethral defect management should be determined at the time of explantation by individual patient characteristics and surgeon experience.
authors.affiliation: Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute-Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH; Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine-Cleveland, OH. Electronic address: nac49@case.edu.
authors.forename: Nathan
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Chertack
authors.affiliation: Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute-Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH; Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine-Cleveland, OH.
authors.forename: Hemant
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Chaparala
authors.affiliation: Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute-Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.
authors.forename: Kenneth W
authors.initials: KW
authors.lastname: Angermeier
authors.affiliation: Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute-Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.
authors.forename: Drogo K
authors.initials: DK
authors.lastname: Montague
authors.affiliation: Glickman Urological & Kidney Institute-Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH.
authors.forename: Hadley M
authors.initials: HM
authors.lastname: Wood
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D020878:Device Removal / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D011475:Prosthesis Failure; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014521:Urethra / Q000601:surgery; D014546:Urinary Catheterization; D016741:Urinary Sphincter, Artificial / Q000009:adverse effects*; D013521:Urologic Surgical Procedures, Male / Q000379:methods