» Articles » PMID: 39280675

Rigicon ContiClassic and ContiReflex Artificial Urinary Sphincter Devices

Overview
Date 2024 Sep 16
PMID 39280675
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The modern AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is often considered the standard of care for the treatment of moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence in male patients. Nonetheless, the AMS 800 device has several inherent limitations, and these factors can potentially impact its clinical utility and impede excellent clinical outcomes. The new Rigicon AUS devices such as ContiClassic and ContiReflex urinary sphincters are designed to overcome some of the existing issues pertaining to the AMS 800 device. The ContiClassic device is similar in terms of device design to the AMS 800 apart from the inclusion of a hydrophilic coating, has a greater range of cuff sizes with 0.25-cm diameter increments, and an Easy Clink Connectors which negates the need for an assembly tool. In contrast, The ContiReflex device differs from the ContiClassic model in that it features an extra stress relief balloon (SRB) to provide a safeguard on the urethral occlusive mechanism against any sudden increase in intra-abdominal pressure, and a larger pump system that is responsible to cycle fluid between the higher pressure two-balloon system and the sphincteric cuff. The following brief report evaluates the current device design and technology of the Rigicon ContiClassic and ContiReflex AUS devices.

References
1.
Chung E . Artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the special populations: neurological, revision, concurrent penile prosthesis and female stress urinary incontinence groups. Asian J Androl. 2019; 22(1):45-50. PMC: 6958990. DOI: 10.4103/aja.aja_128_19. View

2.
Chung E . A state-of-the-art review on the evolution of urinary sphincter devices for the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence: past, present and future innovations. J Med Eng Technol. 2014; 38(6):328-32. DOI: 10.3109/03091902.2014.899400. View

3.
Deruyver Y, Schillebeeckx C, Beels E, Ridder D, Van der Aa F . Long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter implantation. World J Urol. 2021; 40(2):497-503. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-021-03877-1. View

4.
Biardeau X, Aharony S, Campeau L, Corcos J . Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Report of the 2015 Consensus Conference. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 35 Suppl 2:S8-24. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22989. View

5.
Silva L, Andriolo R, Atallah A, da Silva E . Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (9):CD008306. PMC: 7105906. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008306.pub3. View