A prospective analysis of Satisfaction with decision and Decisional Regret in men implanted with an artificial urinary sphincter

Persu C1, Ciofu I1, Popescu G1, Cartas R1, Toma C1, Chirca N1, Jinga V1

Research Type

Clinical

Abstract Category

Male Stress Urinary Incontinence (Post Prostatectomy Incontinence)

Abstract 520
Open Discussion ePosters
Scientific Open Discussion Session 105
Friday 19th September 2025
12:50 - 12:55 (ePoster Station 1)
Exhibition
Male Stress Urinary Incontinence Prospective Study
1. "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
Presenter
Links

Abstract

Hypothesis / aims of study
The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is established as the gold therapeutic standard for post prostatectomy incontinence. There is a long history of usage of this device, and recent years brought significant improvements in reliability and reduction of complications. Our academic center has a ten year experience with implanting artificial sphincters. We aim to evaluate in a systematical manner the perception of our patients with the decision to have an AUS implanted, immediately and after one year.
Study design, materials and methods
We translated and adapted two validated English language questionnaires, the Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SDS) and Decisional Regret Scale (DRS). On the SDS, 1 means lowest satisfaction while 5 means the highest degree of satisfaction. On the DRS, 1 represents the lowest decisional regret while 5 means the highest level of regret. The forms were administered to the patients during the first visit after activation and at the one year follow up visit. Our patients were implanted with either the AUS 800 and the Rigicon Conti Classic devices. Demographic data was collected at the time of initial admission for the surgical implant. A retrospective analysis of objective results and complications was made and the correlation with the questionnaires was analyzed using Student’s t-test with a p value <0.05 considered significant.
Results
Our database includes 31 AUS patients for which follow up data is available. At the moment of data analysis, the mean time since surgery was 26.3±16.7 months. The SDS score was 2.68±1.30 after activation and 3.42±1.15 after one year, p=0.02. The DRS score was 3.5±1.14 after activation and 2.6±1.07 after one year, p=0.0025. After one year, the SDS was 3.48±1.09 in the subgroup with complications and 3.16±1.89 in the subgroup with no complications, p=0.29. The DRS was 2.84±1.29 in the subgroup with complications and 2.68±1.25 in the subgroup where no complications were reported. Since the series is quite small, no relevant differences could be demonstrated between the two types of AUS.
Interpretation of results
Patient perceptions are not significantly associated with objective data, thus increasing the necessity to be specifically evaluated. Shortly after activation, our patients showed lower satisfaction and higher regret towards their decision. After one year, despite some of them encountering surgical complications, the satisfaction rate increased while the decision regret lowered. This aspect should be discussed with the patient before his surgery.
Concluding message
Satisfaction rates should become part of any scientific report of the outcomes of AUS implantation.
Disclosures
Funding none Clinical Trial Yes Public Registry No RCT No Subjects Human Ethics Committee Local Helsinki Yes Informed Consent Yes
02/07/2025 11:21:07