Fixed and dynamic urethral compression for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: is history repeating itself?

PURPOSE

We reviewed the evolution of appliances and devices used for treating post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used the MEDLINE to search the literature from 1966 to March 2000 and then manually searched bibliographies to identify studies that our initial search may have missed.

RESULTS

The evolution of treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence may be traced back to the 18th century. Two main schools of thoughts simultaneously evolved. The first fixed urethral compression devices were constructed to enable urethral obstruction by fixed resistance. This outlet resistance allows voiding after intra-abdominal and intravesical pressure is elevated but it is sufficient to prevent leakage between urinations. The other school of thought preferred creation of dynamic urethral compression in which outlet resistance is not fixed but may be decreased when voiding is desired or elevated between urinations. Therapeutic fixed and dynamic urethral compression interventions may be further divided into external or internal compressive devices or procedures. External fixed compression devices may be traced back to antiquity. A penile clamp, similar to the later Cunningham clamp, and a truss designed to compress the urethra by external perineal compression were presented in the Heister textbook of surgery, Institutiones Chirurgicae, as early as 1750. Dynamic compressive devices applied externally were developed much later, such as the first artificial urinary sphincter, described by Foley, in 1947 and the Vincent apparatus, described in 1960. The modern era of fixed urethral compression began in 1961 with Berry. Acrylic prostheses impregnated with bismuth to allow radiographic visualization were produced in various shapes and sizes, and used to compress the urethra against the urogenital diaphragm. In 1968 the University of California-Los Angeles group under the direction of Kaufman began to use cavernous crural crossover to compress the bulbous urethra (Kaufman I). Later 2 other modifications were described, including approximation of the crura in the midline using a polytetrafluoroethylene mesh tape (Kaufman II) and an implantable silicone gel prosthesis (Kaufman III). With the advent of the artificial urinary sphincter pioneered by Scott in 1973 interest in passive urethral compression disappeared in favor of the implantation of an inflatable circumferential prosthetic sphincter. Recently there has been a trend back to passive urethral compression. Synthetic bolsters have been described that passively compress the bulbar urethra to achieve urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Much creativity has been dedicated to solve the complex and challenging problem of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Devices used for treating this condition may be grouped according to the mechanism of action and how they are applied. Passive urethral compression, long abandoned in favor of dynamic implantable sphincters, has reemerged. Further research in this field may determine which school of thought may provide the best solution for treating post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.