Anatomical and Manometric Comparison of Perineal and Transscrotal Approaches to Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement

Purpose We compared cuff sites and assessed anatomical and manometric differences between the transscrotal and perineal approaches to artificial urinary sphincter placement in fresh male cadavers. Materials and Methods Artificial urinary sphincter implantation using perineal and transscrotal incisions was performed in 15 fresh male cadavers. The artificial urinary sphincter cuffs were placed as proximal as possible using each approach. After measuring urethral circumference at each cuff site, an appropriately sized cuff was placed at each location. The 61 to 70 cm H₂O pressure reservoir and control pump were then connected to the cuffs. Retrograde leak point pressure was assessed sequentially across each cuff. The paired t test was used to compare urethral circumference and retrograde leak point pressure between the 2 approaches. Results Mean urethral circumference using the perineal and transscrotal approaches was 5.38 (range 3.2 to 7.5) and 3.81 cm (range 3 to 4.5), respectively (p <0.0001, 95% CI of difference 0.99–2.13). Mean retrograde leak point pressure using the perineal and transscrotal approaches was 90.1 and 64.9 cm H₂O, respectively (p = 0.0002, 95% CI of difference 13.7–33.5). On visual inspection of cuff sites, the perineal approach was more proximal on the urethra than the transscrotal approach. Conclusions While the transscrotal approach to artificial urinary sphincter placement has the advantage of technical ease, the anatomical and manometric findings of this cadaver study suggest that the perineal approach offers a more proximal cuff location, more robust urethral size and more effective urethral coaptation than the transscrotal approach.