ABSTRACT Objective To compare outcomes for single urethral cuff downsizing versus tandem cuff placement during artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) revision for urethral atrophy. Materials and Methods We identified 1778 AUS surgeries performed at our institution from 1990-2014. Of these, 406 were first AUS revisions, including 69 revisions for urethral atrophy. Multiple clinical and surgical variables were evaluated for potential association with device outcomes following revision, including surgical revision strategy (downsizing a single urethral cuff versus placing tandem urethral cuffs). Results Of the 69 revision surgeries for urethral atrophy at our institution, 56 (82%) were tandem cuff placements, 12 (18%) were single cuff downsizings and one was relocation of a single cuff. When comparing tandem cuff placements and single cuff downsizings, the cohorts were similar with regard to age (p=0.98), body-mass index (p=0.95), prior pelvic radiation exposure (p=0.73) and length of follow-up (p=0.12). Notably, there was no difference in 3-year overall device survival compared between single cuff and tandem cuff revisions (60% versus 76%, p=0.94). Likewise, no significant difference was identified for tandem cuff placement (ref. single cuff) when evaluating the risk of any tertiary surgery (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-4.12, p=0.94) or urethral erosion/device infection following revision (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.20-5.22, p=0.77). Conclusions There was no significant difference in overall device survival in patients undergoing single cuff downsizing or tandem cuff placement during AUS revision for urethral atrophy.

Objective To evaluate for potential predictors of intraoperative conversion from robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) to open abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Patients and Methods We identified 83 consecutive patients from 2002-2012 with symptomatic high-grade post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse that underwent RSC. Multiple clinical variables including patient age, comorbidities (body-mass index [BMI], hypertension, diabetes mellitus, tobacco use), prior intra-abdominal surgery and year of surgery were evaluated for potential association with conversion. Results Overall, 14/83 cases (17%) required conversion to an open sacrocolpopexy. Patients requiring conversion were found to have a significantly higher BMI compared to those who did not (median 30.2kg/m2 versus 25.8kg/m2; p=0.003). Other medical and surgical factors evaluated were similar between the cohorts. When stratified by increasing BMI, conversion remained associated with an increased BMI. That is, conversion occurred in 3.8% (1/26) of patients with BMI ≤25 kg/m2, 14.7% (5/34) with BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2 and 34.7% (8/23) with BMI ≥30 kg/m2 (p=0.004). When evaluated as a continuous variable, BMI was also associated with a significantly increased risk of conversion to an open procedure (OR 1.18, p=0.004). Conclusions Higher BMI was the only clinical factor associated with a significantly increased risk of intra-operative conversion during robotic sacrocolpopexy. Recognition of this may aid in pre-operative counseling and surgical patient selection.