The comparison of artificial urinary sphincter implantation and endourethral macroplastique injection for the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence.
To compare the effectiveness of macroplastique injection with artificial urinary sphincter implantation (AUS) for treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI).
                A prospective randomized clinical trial including 45 patients with PPI was performed secondary to radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP), transvesical prostatectomy (TVP), transurethral prostatectomy (TURP), and TURP with TVP, in 12, 16, 16, 1 patients respectively. Patients were divided into two groups as minimal (group I) and total incontinence (group II) according to the severity of incontinence. Respectively, Group I (n = 21) and group II (n = 24) patients were randomized as AUS implantation (n = 11, n = 11) and macroplastique injection (n = 10, n = 13). Follow-up period was 48 (6-84) months in patients with macroplastique injection and 60 (8-120) months in AUS implantation. The success of the treatment was evaluated by calculating the average number of pads used by the patient per day, the weight of the pads and score of quality of life survey scale for each group both in the preoperative and in the postoperative period.
                There were statistically significant differences between preoperative and postoperative average pad weight, average number of pads and quality of life scores, both in patients with minimal and total incontinence. In group I there was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques. However, in group II there was a significant difference favoring AUS implantation.
                Endourethral injection should be the treatment of choice for patients with minimal incontinence, whereas AUS implantation as the first choice for patients with total incontinence.
The evidence available at present is limited because only one small randomised clinical trial was identified. Although the result is favourable for the implantation of AUS in the group with severe incontinence, this result should be considered with caution due to the small sample size and uncertain methodological quality of the study found.