Revision devices have been excluded (2 cemented stems, 3 uncemented stems, and 3 uncemented cups).
To date, this is the largest series of cases, where laser lead extraction has been used to overcome venous obstruction thereby allowing ipsilateral lead revision or device upgrade.
(It could even be configured such that the motor vibrates when they're off the path, sort of like an invisible wall that keeps them on the right track). This was planned for this revision of the device, but for some reason it stopped working right before demo day.
PURPOSE: Durable success with the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is common but device revision and replacement are often needed for various reasons.
Using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, we compared cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality, device-related infection, device revision, and lead extraction at 1 and 5 years for the extraction versus the cap and abandon group.Among 6859 patients, 1113 (16.2%) underwent extraction, whereas 5746 (83.8%) underwent capping and abandonment.
During the follow-up window, 2 participants experienced lead displacement and underwent revision of their device.
We describe our experience using laser lead extraction to overcome venous occlusion to enable ipsilateral device revision and/or upgrade.
A major obstacle to device revision and/or upgrade is the presence of asymptomatic ipsilateral central venous obstruction.
In our study, the finding of venous obstruction precluding device revision or upgrade was 29% in keeping with recent reports.
We have described our experience using laser lead extraction to overcome ipsilateral venous obstruction in patients undergoing device revision and/or upgrade.
