Platinum Priority

Reply from Authors re: Drogo K. Montague. Males Slings: Compressive versus Repositioning. Eur Urol 2009;56:934–5

By: Jean-Nicolas Cornulowast and Francois Haab

European Urology, Volume 56 Issue 6, December 2009

Published online: 01 December 2009

Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF (47 KB)

Refers to article:

Prospective Evaluation of the Functional Sling Suspension for Male Postprostatectomy Stress Urinary Incontinence: Results after 1 Year

Ricarda M. Bauer, Margit E. Mayer, Christian Gratzke, Irina Soljanik, Alexander Buchner, Patrick J. Bastian, Christian G. Stief and Christian Gozzi

Accepted 21 July 2009

December 2009 (Vol. 56, Issue 6, pages 928 - 933)

Refers to article:

The AdVance Transobturator Male Sling for Postprostatectomy Incontinence: Clinical Results of a Prospective Evaluation after a Minimum Follow-up of 6 Months

Jean-Nicolas Cornu, Philippe Sèbe, Calin Ciofu, Laurence Peyrat, Sébastien Beley, Mohammed Tligui, Bertrand Lukacs, Olivier Traxer, Olivier Cussenot and Francois Haab

Accepted 2 September 2009

December 2009 (Vol. 56, Issue 6, pages 923 - 927)

Refers to article:

Males Slings: Compressive versus Repositioning

Drogo K. Montague

December 2009 (Vol. 56, Issue 6, pages 934 - 935)

Stress urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy is often a challenge for the urologist. With erectile dysfunction, it remains the most serious and common complication of curative treatment of localized prostate cancer and has a major impact on quality of life [1].

Artificial urinary sphincter remains the gold standard for surgical management of postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) [2], especially in cases of severe incontinence. The recent surgical techniques using male sling opened up new horizons in the field of PPI management of cases with mild to moderate symptoms; however, the success rate was variable and major complications sometimes occurred [3]. The AdVance male retrourethral sling was introduced 2 yr ago [4]. Unlike other male slings, this one is not compressive but instead aims to reposition the urethra closer to the bladder neck. This truly original technique is considered to be innovative, and the first results after 1-yr follow-up have been presented and assessed [5].

We are well aware that our results obtained with the AdVance male sling are preliminary [6]. Even if strong efficacy of this procedure is highly suggested by our work and supported by other reports [7], some issues remain.

The first main issue is that patients who are supposed to benefit from this retrourethral sling must be selected carefully. Selection should be based on medical history, clinical examination, severity of incontinence, endoscopic evaluation, and urodynamic parameters [7]. We determined that previous radiation was associated with an important rate of failure. We suppose that this fact may be related to changes in the periurethral tissue, which plays an important role in this technique [4]. Only a larger evaluation with a longer follow-up can precisely determine the preoperative parameters that are significantly associated with failure of the procedure and, thus, permit better patient selection.

The second main issue deals with the operative technique and the tension of the sling.

Achieving perfect positioning of the sling after dissection of the bulbomembranous urethra is a major concern. Indeed, the accurate retrourethral placement of the sling, in order to reposition the urethra, is crucial to get the therapeutic effect. In the field of female incontinence, even if the problem is a bit different, precise standardization of positioning and tensioning of transobturator tape has been difficult to define. Sling techniques are bound to remain partly dependent on the surgeon’s experience. The impact of this variability for the AdVance male sling is not already determined.

Moreover, the durability of our results has not yet been well assessed because of limited follow-up due to the recent publication of the technique [4]. The limited cases of early failure in our initial experience, which are mainly due to patient selection or to the procedure itself, constitute encouraging results. Our work shows a small number of late failure cases, and these cases potentially implicate both the local conditions and the durability of the effect. Only longer follow-up will permit analysis of the reappearance of incontinence and determination of the factors associated with delayed failure.

The two papers presented in this issue show similar results. The data of efficacy are encouraging and should inspire other practitioners to experience this technique and to communicate on their series with precise results and indications for the AdVance transobturator male sling.

Conflicts of interest

Francois Haab is a consultant for American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA.


  • [1] M.G. Sanda, R.L. Dunn, J. Michalski, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250-1261 Crossref
  • [2] D.K. Montague, K.W. Angermeier, D.R. Paolone. Long-term continence and patient satisfaction after artificial sphincter implantation for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. J Urol. 2001;166:547-549
  • [3] R.M. Bauer, P.J. Bastian, C. Gozzi, C.G. Stief. Postprostatectomy incontinence: all about diagnosis and management. Eur Urol. 2009;55:322-333 Crossref
  • [4] P. Rehder, C. Gozzi. Transobturator sling suspension for male urinary incontinence including post-radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2007;52:860-867 Crossref
  • [5] D.K. Montague. Males slings: compressive versus repositioning. Eur Urol. 2009;56:934-935 Crossref
  • [6] J.-N. Cornu, P. Sèbe, C. Ciofu, et al. The AdVance transobturator male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence: clinical results of a prospective evaluation after a minimum follow-up of 6 months. Eur Urol. 2009;56:923-927 Crossref
  • [7] R.M. Bauer, M.E. Mayer, C. Gratzke, et al. Prospective evaluation of the functional sling suspension for male postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: results after 1 year. Eur Urol. 2009;56:928-933 Crossref


Department of Urology, Tenon Hospital, Groupe Hospitalo-Universitaire EST, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris VI, Paris, France

Corresponding author. Urology Department, Tenon Hospital, 4 rue de la Chine, 75970 Paris Cedex 20, France. Tel. +1 56 01 64 95; Fax: +1 56 01 73 06.

Place a comment

Your comment *

max length: 5000