Volume 35, Issue 4 pp. 437-443
Review Article

Overview of the 2015 ICS Consensus Conference

X. Biardeau

X. Biardeau

Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
S. Aharony

S. Aharony

Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
the AUS Consensus Group

the AUS Consensus Group

The AUS Consensus Group: KW Angermeier1, TB Boone2, WO Brant3, E Chartier-Kastler4, M Drake5, DS Elliott6, WJ Hellstrom7, S Herschorn8, KA McCammon9, AF Morey10, A Mourtzinos11, VW Nitti12, AC Peterson13, JS Sandhu14, OL Westney15, FA Yafi7Search for more papers by this author
L. Campeau

L. Campeau

Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Search for more papers by this author
J. Corcos

Corresponding Author

J. Corcos

Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Correspondence to: Dr. Jacques Corcos, M.D., Department of Urology, Jewish General Hospital, 3755 chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1E2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 21 March 2016
Citations: 11
 1Glickman Urologic and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA
 2Department of Urology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
 3Division of Urology, Center for Reconstructive Urology and Men's Health, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
 4Department of Urology, Pitié-Salpêtrière Academic Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Pierre and Marie Curie Medical School, Paris, France
 5Bristol Urological Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
 6Department of Urology, Section of Pelvic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
 7Department of Urology, Tulane University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans, LA 70112, USA
 8Division of Urology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 9Department of Urology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA, USA
 10Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA
 11Institute of Urology, Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Burlington, MA 01805, USA
 12Department of Urology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
 13Division of Urologic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
 14Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA
 15Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas-Houston Medical School, Houston, TX 77030, USA
The AUS Consensus Group: KW Angermeier (2), TB Boone (3), WO Brant (4), E Chartier-Kastler (5), M Drake (6), DS Elliott (7), WJ Hellstrom (8), S Herschorn (9), KA McCammon (10), AF Morey (11), A Mourtzinos (12), VW Nitti (13), AC Peterson (14), JS Sandhu (15), OL Westney (16), FA Yafi (8).
Dr. David Ginsberg led the peer-review process as the Associate Editor responsible for the paper.
Potential conflicts of interest: Dr. Morey reports other from American Medical Systems, other from Coloplast Corp., outside the submitted work; Dr. Mourtzinos reports other from Boston Scientific, other from Medtronic, other from Allergan, other from Astellas, outside the submitted work; Dr. Elliott has nothing to disclose; Dr. Peterson reports grants from American Medical Systems, grants from Coloplast, during the conduct of the study; grants from American Medical Systems, outside the submitted work; Dr. Chartier-Kastler reports personal fees from AMS, personal fees from uromedica, from null, outside the submitted work; Dr. Yafi has nothing to disclose; Dr. Sandhu reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; Dr. Corcos reports grants from Pfizer, grants from Astellas, grants from Allergan, outside the submitted work; Dr. Angermeier reports grants and personal fees from American Medical Systems (now Boston Scientific), outside the submitted work; Dr. Campeau has nothing to disclose; Dr. Drake reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Allergan, grants and personal fees from Ferring, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Astellas, outside the submitted work; Dr. Westney reports grants from American Medical Systems, outside the submitted work; Dr. Aharony has nothing to disclose; Dr. Herschorn reports personal fees from Boston Scientific, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Astellas, grants and personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from Pfier, personal fees from Merus, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Promedon, outside the submitted work; Dr. Boone reports Advisory Board and Speaker—Allergan and Advisory Board and Speaker—Astellas; Dr. Nitti reports Investigator—Allergan, Investigator—Astellas and Investigator—Cook MyoSite; Dr. Brant reports grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, during the conduct of the study; Dr. Hellstrom reports personal fees from American Medical Systems, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Abbvie, Allergan, Antares, Astellas, Coloplast, Endo, Pfizer, Repros, Lipocine, other from Coloplast, Endo, NERI, personal fees from Endo, Menarini, other from NIH, Theralogix, outside the submitted work; Dr. Biardeau has nothing to disclose; Dr. McCammon reports other from Honoraria AMS, during the conduct of the study; other from Consultant and Honoraria AMS, outside the submitted work.

Abstract

Purpose

The AMS800™ device is considered to be the “gold-standard” when male incontinence surgical treatment is contemplated. Despite 40 years of experience, it is still a specialized procedure with a number of challenges. Here, we present the recommendations issued from the AUS Consensus Group, regarding indications, management and follow-up AMS800™ implantation or revision.

Materials and Methods

Under ICS auspices, an expert panel met on July 10, 2015 in Chicago, IL, USA in an attempt to reach a consensus on diverse issues related to the AMS800™ device. Participants were selected by the two co-chairs on the basis of their practice in a University hospital and their experience: number of implanted AUSs according to AMS (American Medical System Holdings Inc., Minnetonka, MN) records and/or major published articles. Topics listed were the result of a pre-meeting email brainstorming by all participants. The co-chairs distributed topics randomly to all participants, who then had to propose a statement on each topic for approval by the conference after a short evidence-based presentation, when possible.

Results

The present recommendations, based on the most recent and relevant data available in literature as well as expert opinions, successively address multiple specific and problematic issues associated with the AMS800™ trough a 6-chapter structure: pre-operative assessment, pre operative challenges, implantation technique, post-operative care, trouble-shooting, and special populations.

Conclusion

These guidelines undoubtedly constitute a reference document, which will help urologists to carefully select patients and apply the most adapted management to implantation, follow-up and trouble-shooting of the AMS800™. Neurourol. Urodynam. 35:437–443, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.