title: In situ urethroplasty after artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion.
abstract: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) cuff erosion is a challenging complication traditionally managed with device removal and Foley catheter drainage. Urethral stricture can result secondary to the healing process, delaying AUS reimplantation. In situ urethroplasty (ISU) technique is a definitive repair at the time of device removal. Early results demonstrate a decreased rate of stricture formation compared to traditional management with little additional operative time and no additional complications. Patients undergoing ISU have less delay prior to AUS reimplantation, leading to possible benefit in health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes.
authors.affiliation: UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
authors.forename: Jordan A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Siegel
authors.affiliation: UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
authors.forename: Timothy J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Tausch
authors.affiliation: UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
authors.forename: Allen F
authors.initials: AF
authors.lastname: Morey
keywords: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS); cuff erosion; in situ urethroplasty (ISU); urethral stricture
references.citation: J Urol. 2001 Nov;166(5):1755-8
references.pmid: 11586217
references.citation: Age Ageing. 1997 Sep;26(5):367-74
references.pmid: 9351481
references.citation: Urology. 2012 Apr;79(4):922-8
references.pmid: 22305763
references.citation: J Urol. 2004 Feb;171(2 Pt 1):703-7; discussion 707-8
references.pmid: 14713791
references.citation: J Urol. 2003 Aug;170(2 Pt 1):512-5
references.pmid: 12853811
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Jun;175(6):2186-90; discussion 2190
references.pmid: 16697836
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Apr;173(4):1242-5
references.pmid: 15758761
references.citation: World J Urol. 1997;15(5):316-9
references.pmid: 9372584
references.citation: Ir J Med Sci. 2003 Jul-Sep;172(3):136-8
references.pmid: 14700117
references.citation: J Urol. 2000 Sep;164(3 Pt 1):702-6; discussion 706-7
references.pmid: 10953129
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 Sep;174(3):994-7
references.pmid: 16094021
references.citation: J Urol. 2007 Mar;177(3):1021-5
references.pmid: 17296403
references.citation: J Urol. 2014 Aug;192(2):442-6
references.pmid: 24512955
references.citation: J Urol. 2014 Mar;191(3):734-8
references.pmid: 24018241
references.citation: Urology. 1990 Mar;35(3):215-8
references.pmid: 2316084
references.citation: J Urol. 2012 Mar;187(3):951-5
references.pmid: 22264456
references.citation: J Urol. 2011 Nov;186(5):1962-6
references.pmid: 21944140
references.citation: Urology. 2006 Mar;67(3):559-65
references.pmid: 16527580
references.citation: Urology. 2014 Oct;84(4):934-8
references.pmid: 25109562
references.citation: Urology. 1973 Mar;1(3):252-9
references.pmid: 4802066
references.citation: Urology. 1996 Dec;48(6):906-8
references.pmid: 8973675
references.citation: J Urol. 2015 Feb;193(2):593-7
references.pmid: 25106901
references.citation: J Urol. 1998 Apr;159(4):1206-8
references.pmid: 9507835
references.citation: J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1657-60
references.pmid: 15821530