The Consultant Urologist who completed the Dynamic Video Study of my urinary system advised that another appointment would be required to complete an internal examination of my urethra and bladder. That procedure being required to check that the problem was not due to a STRICTURE within my urethra or EXCESS SCAR TISSUE where my urethra was reconnected to my bladder. Following that internal examination the Consultant Urologist advised that there were no STRICTURE or EXCESS SCAR TISSUE so a further appointment would be required to discuss the options and the Master Trial. As Sean reported the hospital procedures were in my case slow with maths between each appointment.
During the last appointment I was shown a sample of the Artificial Sphincter, where the various parts would be located in my body and how the device functioned. The conclusion was that I was a suitable candidate for the Master Trial as either a Male Sling r an Artificial Sphincter would be suitable for my condition.
The Consultant Urologist who surgically removed my prostate gland, left nerve bundle, 12 lymph nodes and a margin of tissue to hopefully prove the cancer had not spread further in December 2012 advised in January 2015 that the Male Sling would not in his opinion be suitable for me but he would refer me to a colleague who specialised in the male sling. I was also given a leaflet produced by the American manufacturers of the Artificial Sphincter in which they said most men used only one incontinence pad per day after the device was operational. I wondered exactly what that meant as wearing on pad for 24 hours seemed very unlikely to me.
As part of my decision making I asked PCKUK for contact with previous patients who had undergone such surgery. The one man who telephoned to discuss his experience was initially very upbeat. However after some discussion he confirmed that he still used one pad per day and then that he used one pad every 8 hours. I said I was keen club cyclist cycling regularly distances of between 35 and 100 miles on a Saturday, Sunday and often during the week. That produced the response that the consultant who had fitted his artificial sphincter had advised him to dispose of or lock his bicycle away as due to the location of the inflatable-cuff which closes the urethra contact with a bicycle saddle could result in damage to the cuff and or the urethra resulting in further surgery to replace the device and possible infection.
I discussed the advice received with the consultant urologist during the third appointment. He advised that one of the men he had previously fitted an artificial sphincter for was a cyclist and had brought his saddle and padded cycling shorts with him tom discuss the possibility of problems. The consultant advised that providing I used a wide enough supportive saddle and wore padded cycling clothing there should be no problems. I asked if it would be possible for that consultant to arrange for me to meet or discuss the experiences of one of his previous patients. The consultant wrote to my GP (copy to me) on 14 August 2015, "Mr Butchart was keen to speak to one our patients and though we haven't had a formal set-up for this service I will try and identify a patient who is willing to discuss his experiences with Mr Butchart. But there has been no word of a man willing to discuss his experiences to date.
I was pleased to have the VERBAL results of the dynamic video test and the INTERNAL EXAMINATION. Both to confirm that I was incontinent and that there were no problems with my bladder and urethra. I am reluctant to undergo further surgery at my age if there is any risk that the procedure will not cure my incontinence problem and interfere with my main sporting and social activity as a competitive club cyclist and athlete.