Skip to main content

Artificial Urinary Sphincter (Procedure)

The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard surgical treatment for moderate-to-severe male stress urinary incontinence (SUI), particularly following prostate surgery.[1][2][3] The AMS 800™ is the predominant device, in clinical use since 1972 with more than 250,000 implanted worldwide.[1][5][9] It provides durable continence restoration through a completely implantable, fluid-filled hydraulic system that mimics voluntary sphincter function.

Device Components​

The AMS 800 consists of three silicone components connected by kink-resistant tubing forming a closed hydraulic circuit:

Artificial urinary sphincter components: a cuff around the bulbar urethra, a scrotal control pump, and a retropubic pressure-regulating balloon, with the fill-void cycle

The three fluid-connected components and how they cycle. The cuff encircles the bulbar urethra; the pressure-regulating balloon (PRB) sits in the space of Retzius and sets cuff pressure (61–70 cmH₂O); the control pump lies in the scrotum (labia majora in women). At rest the cuff is fluid-filled and the urethra is closed; squeezing the pump shifts fluid to the PRB so the cuff opens to void, then the PRB auto-refills the cuff over the next minutes to restore continence. (Original WARWIKI schematic)

ComponentLocationFunction
Occlusive CuffBulbous urethra (men) or bladder neckApplies circumferential compression to maintain continence; 13 sizes (3.5–11.0 cm)
Pressure-Regulating Balloon (PRB)Prevesical (space of Retzius)Maintains constant system pressure; most common range 61–70 cmH₂O
Control PumpScrotum (men) / labia majora (women)Patient-operated valve mechanism; contains a deactivation button to keep cuff open

Many components are coated with InhibiZone™ — silicone impregnated with rifampin and minocycline hydrochloride — to reduce bacterial colonization at implantation.[16]

System Operation​

The AUS cycles between continence and voiding by fluid transfer between the cuff and balloon. Patients are trained to operate it at the activation visit and must demonstrate competent cycling before leaving on an active device.[57]

Voiding cycle​

  1. At rest (continent): the cuff is fluid-filled, applying circumferential urethral compression sufficient to prevent leakage.
  2. To void: the patient locates the scrotal pump and squeezes and releases the bulb several times, transferring fluid from the cuff → PRB. The cuff deflates and the urethra opens.
  3. Auto-refill: the PRB passively returns fluid to the cuff over the next few minutes (roughly 1–11 minutes depending on the refill resistor and component size), restoring continence with no further patient action.[6]

Deactivation and reactivation​

The control pump has two palpable parts: a soft lower bulb the patient squeezes to pump, and a firmer upper block housing the refill resistor and the deactivation button.[1][57] Pressing the button locks the device in the open (empty-cuff) position so the cuff exerts no pressure on the urethra.[57][71]

  • To deactivate: squeeze the bulb to empty the cuff, then — while the cuff is still deflated — press the deactivation button on the firm part of the pump. A small dimple becomes palpable at the button, confirming the device is locked open; the cuff stays empty indefinitely and the patient is incontinent until it is reactivated.
  • To reactivate: give the bulb one firm, sharp squeeze. This pops the button back out (the dimple disappears) and the PRB refills the cuff over the next few minutes, restoring continence. The squeeze can be momentarily uncomfortable, and patients often need coaching to commit to it.

Deflated is not the same as deactivated. A cuff that has only been pumped down will auto-refill within a few minutes; it stays open only while the deactivation button is engaged. This is the crux of safe catheterization (below) — emptying the cuff without deactivating lets it re-pressurize around an indwelling catheter.[57][72]

At the close of surgery the system is filled, cycled to purge air, and left locked open with the cuff empty — not merely deflated — for the healing period.[57][71] Deactivation is then used deliberately in several settings: the postoperative period until activation (see Postoperative Management); before any urethral catheterization or instrumentation; electively overnight in selected patients to decompress the urethra and potentially limit atrophy; and in the obtunded or hospitalized patient who cannot self-cycle.[57][71]

At activation, the clinician first confirms the pump sits in the dependent scrotum — teaching the patient to gently "milk" it down if it has ridden up — then releases the deactivation button with a single firm squeeze and watches the patient cycle the device competently. Counsel patients not to forcibly squeeze the pump while it is deactivated, as a hard squeeze can inadvertently reactivate it.[57]

Catheterization and urethral instrumentation in an AUS patient​

A cuff left inflated around a catheter causes pressure necrosis and erosion — yet fewer than a quarter of urologists report confidence operating the device for this purpose, making it a high-yield safety point.[72] Whenever urethral access is needed:[57][72]

  • Deactivate the device first (cuff open) before passing any catheter, cystoscope, or sound — never instrument an active AUS.
  • Use the smallest catheter that will do the job (≤14 Fr) for the shortest possible time.
  • If indwelling drainage is expected to exceed 48 hours, place a suprapubic catheter instead (image-guided, to avoid the device); by 7 days of urethral catheterization a suprapubic tube is mandatory to limit erosion risk.
  • In the obtunded patient who only needs output monitoring, deactivate and use a condom catheter or pad weights rather than an indwelling urethral catheter.
  • Urology must be consulted whenever an AUS patient needs catheterization, and patients should wear a MedicAlert bracelet / carry a device card so emergency staff deactivate before instrumenting.

Indications​

Primary indications for AUS implantation:[1][2][8]

  • Moderate-to-severe SUI (typically >2 pads/day, or 24-hour pad weight >400 g) after prostate surgery — accounts for >90% of male implants
  • Failed conservative management (pelvic floor physiotherapy, behavioral modification)
  • Intrinsic sphincter deficiency from radical prostatectomy, cryotherapy, HIFU, TURP, or radiation
  • Neurogenic bladder with SUI in select patients with adequate dexterity[7][21]
  • Women with severe SUI refractory to other treatments (limited data)[21]

Absolute contraindications: Active UTI or urethral erosion, inadequate manual dexterity to operate the pump, uncontrolled detrusor overactivity incompatible with safe storage pressures.

Preoperative Assessment​

EvaluationPurpose
CystoscopyExclude urethral stricture, bladder neck contracture, bladder pathology, cancer recurrence
UrodynamicsAssess storage parameters; essential in neurogenic patients or complex histories
24-hour pad weightQuantify severity; >400 g favors AUS over sling
Manual dexterity assessmentPatient must reliably operate scrotal pump
PSAExclude cancer recurrence prior to implant
Infection screeningClear any UTI before proceeding

Surgical Technique​

Approaches​

Perineal approach (traditional, most common)

  • Midline perineal incision for cuff dissection around the bulbous urethra
  • Separate small lower abdominal / inguinal incision for PRB placement
  • Optimal visualization; favored for primary implants

Transverse scrotal / penoscrotal approach[10]

  • Single-incision access to the proximal bulbar urethra
  • Shorter operative time (mean ~28 min); comparable outcomes in experienced hands
  • Some series report slightly lower dry rates vs perineal approach

Bladder neck placement[21]

  • Used primarily in women and children, or men with bulbar urethral compromise
  • Requires suprapubic incision; higher erosion risk

Transalbugineal approach (emerging)[11]

  • Cuff passed through the tunica albuginea of the corpora cavernosa
  • May reduce erosion risk while preserving erectile function in select patients

Key Principles​

  • Cuff placed around bulbous urethra in the majority of men; size typically 3.5–6.0 cm
  • PRB placed in the space of Retzius (prevesical space)
  • Meticulous hemostasis and atraumatic tissue handling to minimize urethral injury
  • Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis; InhibiZone coating provides additional protection
  • Device left deactivated at closure; activated 6 weeks postoperatively once tissues have healed[8]

Outcomes​

Continence​

EndpointRateSource
Social continence (0–1 pad/day)60–83%[13][14][15][19]
Total dryness (0 pads/day)51–60% at 12 months[12][15]
>50% pad weight reduction~94% at 12 months (AUSCO trial)[12]
Patient satisfaction>80%; 92–99% would recommend or repeat the procedure[13][19]

The prospective multicenter AUSCO trial (Kaufman et al.[12], J Urol 2025) demonstrated 94% of patients achieved >50% pad weight reduction and 60% reported zero pad use at 12 months, with significant quality-of-life improvements across all validated instruments.

Institutional volume effect: Higher-volume centers demonstrate better continence and lower revision rates — patient referral to experienced implanting surgeons is recommended.[14]

Complications​

Early​

  • Urinary retention: ~5.8%
  • Hematoma / seroma
  • Wound infection

Late (requiring reoperation)​

ComplicationRateSource
Infection0.5–10.6%[16]
Urethral erosion2.9–12%[4][16]
Mechanical failure (fluid leak, pump failure)Most common long-term complication[16][17]
Urethral atrophy (recurrent incontinence with functional device)1.6–11.4%[16][17]

Infection and erosion often occur together and mandate complete device explantation.[16] Risk is substantially higher in radiated patients and those with neurogenic bladder.[20][21] A minimum 3-month waiting period before reimplantation is generally recommended; the salvage wash-out technique (immediate reimplantation with antibiotic irrigation) can be considered in select non-eroded cases.

Revision and Long-Term Durability​

Revision burden is a critical counseling point — approximately 50% of patients require reoperation within 10 years:[17][18]

TimepointRevision-free survival
1 year~94%
2 years71–88%
5 years57–62%
10 years~40%

Median time to first revision: 6.6 years (Lenfant et al.[18], J Urol 2025).

Causes of revision[17][23]​

Failure modeShare of revisionsDetail
Non-mechanical failure (NOMECA)~57%Persistent/recurrent SUI with a functioning device — traditionally attributed to urethral atrophy, though the exact pathophysiology is debated
Mechanical failure~28%Cuff (46% of mechanical failures) > abdominal reservoir (23%) > tubing (22%) > pump (10%)
Infection / erosion~11–15%Urethral erosion mandates explantation

Risk factors for earlier revision[17][20][22]​

Risk factorImpact
Pelvic radiationEarlier complications, higher erosion rates; 5-yr revision-free survival drops from 83% (no risk factors) → 73% (radiation alone) → 46% (radiation + urethroplasty)[17]
Larger initial cuff sizeOnly independent predictor of overall revision (HR 1.04, p = 0.01) and NOMECA revision (HR 1.05, p = 0.004)[22]
Prior erosion history~4× higher future erosion risk (RR 4.02, p = 0.02)[36]
High comorbidity burdenIncreased risk of removal/revision[24]
Diabetes / poor ASA statusEarlier failure
Low institutional volumeHigher revision rates

Revision and Salvage Techniques​

Preoperative Evaluation​

Before any revision, a systematic workup is essential:[25]

  • Physical examination and interview for signs of infection (scrotal erythema, purulence, pain)
  • Cystoscopy to assess for urethral erosion
  • Device function assessment (pump cycling, fluid status)
  • If infection or erosion is present → all components must be removed first, with delayed reimplantation several months later
  • If no infection or erosion → simultaneous device removal and reimplantation can be performed

The Hourglass Debate — Capsulotomy and the Atrophy Question​

When an AUS cuff is explanted at revision, the underlying corpus spongiosum almost universally shows a "waisted" or "hourglass" deformity at the cuff site. This has historically been interpreted as sub-cuff urethral atrophy, the rationale for cuff downsizing. The Bugeja / Mundy series (UCLH 2016) fundamentally challenged this interpretation: in six consecutive patients undergoing AUS exploration for recurrent incontinence, the fibrous capsule (pseudocapsule) surrounding the old cuff was deliberately incised and excised. After capsulectomy, the urethral circumference immediately returned to normal — the hourglass deformity resolved once the constrictive sheath was released. Manometry of the explanted pressure-regulating balloons showed pressure loss in all cases, suggesting the dominant failure mechanism was PRB material degradation, not urethral atrophy. Replacement with a same-size cuff and same-pressure PRB was successful in 12 of 14 (85.7%) of the broader cohort.[51]

Building on this, Terlecki and Wilson proposed a paradigm-shifting revision approach ("Wilson's Workshop 11") centered on three principles:[52]

  1. Capsulotomy / capsulectomy at the cuff site — incise or excise the fibrous capsule to release the constrictive sheath and let the spongiosum re-expand to its true dimensions.
  2. Same-size cuff replacement — measure the urethra after capsule release, then place a new cuff of the same (or appropriately re-measured) size rather than downsizing.
  3. Complete device replacement — exchange cuff + PRB + pump as a unit, addressing the underlying PRB pressure degradation.

The rationale: "atrophy" is in large part capsular constriction plus PRB material failure, not true tissue thinning.[51][53] Capsulotomy reframes revision as a tissue-release-and-device-refresh problem rather than an escalation to downsizing, tandem cuff, or transcorporal placement. Capsulotomy is also relevant around the PRB (capsular contracture can alter pressure-volume characteristics; PRB herniation through the external inguinal ring is a correctable cause of AUS malfunction in ~3.2% of patients)[54] and around the scrotal pump (to facilitate removal or repositioning).[55]

Practical implication: consider capsulotomy a routine step during revision for non-mechanical failure. Measure the urethra after capsule release. Default to complete device replacement with a same-size cuff unless tissue assessment shows true erosion-risk or compromised tissue that warrants escalation. The largest multicenter NOMECA study found larger cuff size was the only independent predictor of revision (HR 1.05, p = 0.004) — interpretable either as larger cuffs causing more remodeling, or simply that loose initial fit becomes clinically significant as the PRB degrades.[17]

1. Cuff Downsizing​

Replacing the existing cuff with a smaller one to improve urethral coaptation in the setting of presumed urethral atrophy — the most common NOMECA revision (~69% of NOMECA revisions in the largest multicenter series).[22]

  • Continence outcomes (Krughoff 2023): 97% subjective improvement, 93% decreased pad use, mean −2.2 ± 1.45 pads/day (p < 0.001).[40]
  • Durability: at median 1.8-yr follow-up, 70.6% of downsized cuffs remained in place; 11.8% removed for erosion, 5.9% replaced for mechanical failure, 5.9% for herniated PRB.[40]
  • Pad reduction (Saffarian 2003): in the original downsizing series for sub-cuff atrophy, pad use fell from 3.9 to 0.5 per day with 80% satisfaction.[41]
  • Tradeoff: downsizing carries a higher rate of subsequent mechanical failure vs other revision techniques (p = 0.01) — hypothesized to reflect increased cuff-to-urethra pressure with a tighter cuff.[27]
  • Impact of the 3.5 cm cuff: introduction in 2010 cut revision rates in patients initially receiving 4.0 cm cuffs from 22.2% to 4.7% (p < 0.001) — supporting accurate primary sizing as a prevention strategy.[26]

The Bugeja / Terlecki-Wilson view reframes most "downsizing" cases as candidates for capsulotomy + same-size replacement instead (see above).[51][52]

2. Cuff Repositioning (Relocation)​

Moving the cuff to a more proximal or distal site on the bulbar urethra. Appropriate when the original site shows unhealthy tissue.

  • Best 3-month complete continence of any revision technique in the multicenter NOMECA study (p = 0.04) when combined with complete device change.[22]
  • Proximal repositioning (Couillard / Stone, 1995): 5/6 (83%) significantly improved at > 1 yr; the single failure had poor detrusor compliance on preoperative UDS in addition to sphincter weakness.[42]
  • Tradeoff: repositioning with the same cuff size alone is associated with a higher rate of persistent incontinence (p = 0.02) — the benefit appears to depend on appropriate re-measurement / sizing at the new site.[27]

3. Tandem Cuff Placement​

Adding a second cuff to increase the coaptive length of the urethra.

  • Lowest rate of recurrent incontinence among revision techniques (Eswara multicenter; p = 0.02).[27]
  • DiMarco / Elliott series of 18 patients: pad use 4.3 ± 0.35 → 1.6 ± 0.42 per day (p < 0.001); reoperations for cuff leakage (1) and cuff erosion (2, one with 3 prior revisions including a high-pressure balloon).[28]
  • Single vs double cuff at primary placement (O'Connor 2008): no significant difference in continence, dry rate, or QoL (IIQ-7 14.8 → 4.1 single-cuff vs 16.3 → 6.4 double-cuff, p = 0.34), but double-cuff patients underwent 12 additional surgeries for complications vs 7 for single-cuff.[43]
  • Cadaver model (Manka / Wright): tandem cuff did not significantly improve retrograde leak point pressure vs a single cuff (73.5 vs 77.75 vs 79.25 cm H₂O for distal, proximal, and tandem, p = 0.44) — the perceived benefit of tandem cuffs may reflect the more proximal placement of one cuff rather than the dual-cuff mechanism itself.[44]
  • AMS PIF database (n = 27,096): tandem cuff (8.2% of cases) was associated with higher explantation on multivariate analysis, likely reflecting selection bias toward higher-risk patients.[45]
  • Ahyai 2016 prospectively compared 57 low-risk single-cuff vs 123 high-risk double-cuff: no significant difference in pad usage or objective continence, but double-cuff patients reported superior subjective / social continence and less persistent UI (p ≤ 0.02) — at a cost of 5.7× higher late explantation risk (p = 0.02) and shorter explantation-free survival (p = 0.003), again confounded by underlying risk.[46]

Tandem cuffs can be placed in standard or transcorporal fashion.[29]

4. Transcorporal (TC) Cuff Placement​

The cuff is placed through incisions in the corporal tunica albuginea, incorporating corporal tissue into the cuff circumference.[30]

  • Adds bulk to the urethra; allows better cuff sizing at distal sites where the urethra is small.
  • Protects the urethra from dissection injury and buttresses the vulnerable dorsal surface.
  • Particularly useful after prior erosion, urethral atrophy, or when strong periurethral adhesions preclude safe standard dissection.[25]
  • Counsel re: potential erectile-function deterioration in potent men.[30]

Systematic review and meta-analysis (Domínguez Gutiérrez 2025, 20 studies): TC vs standard showed:[47]

OutcomeTC vs standard
Revision rateHigher (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.16–7.75)
Explantation rateNo significant difference (OR 1.41, 0.27–7.24)
InfectionLower (OR 0.33, 0.12–0.95)
ErosionLower (OR 0.35, 0.15–0.81)
Continence / QoLComparable

Key series:

  • Guralnick / Webster: 84% achieved 0–1 pads/day; no erosion or infection in transcorporally placed cuffs.[30]
  • Wiedemann 2013 (n = 23, median 20 mo): 8/17 (47%) perfectly dry, 5/17 (29%) social continence at < 1 pad, improvement in QoL.[48]
  • Ortiz "erosion heat map" 2020: erosion in 18.3% of TC vs 6.1% of standard cases (p < 0.05) in the heat-mapped cohort — anatomic distribution of erosion is similar between approaches.[49]
  • Mock 2015 (n = 37 TC): overall explantation 18.9%; ≥ 2 urethral risk factors → 1.65× higher erosion probability (95% CI 1.3–2.2); 35-mo erosion-free survival 100% with 0–1 risk factors vs 64% with ≥ 2 (p < 0.001); all 4 erosion cases had prior radiation.[50]
  • Moser 2018 (TC after prior erosion, n = 34): recurrent complication 32.4%, recurrent erosion 26.4%. No significant difference vs non-TC group (p = 0.438), but irradiated TC patients had significantly higher repeat-complication rate (p = 0.006) — TC does not eliminate erosion risk in irradiated tissue.[31]

5. Tandem Transcorporal Cuff​

Combines the proximal protection of a tandem second cuff with the dorsal-tissue augmentation of TC placement. Magera / Elliott series (n = 18, mean follow-up 3.3 yr): median pad use 5.0 → 2.0 (p < 0.001); reserved for the most compromised urethras after multiple prior revisions.[29]

6. Distal Double Cuff vs Transcorporal — Comparative Outcomes​

Maurer 2019 prospectively compared 58 distal-double-cuff (DC) vs 13 TC patients (all high-risk salvage cases, median 24 mo follow-up):[39]

DCTCp
Objective continence88%72%0.37
Social continence94%100%1.0
Explantation-free survival——0.399

No significant differences in infection, erosion, mechanical failure, or explantation. The authors proposed a sequential salvage strategy: DC first, then TC if DC fails — maximizing total duration of AUS-based therapy across the patient's lifetime.

7. Pressure-Regulating Balloon (PRB) Modification​

Exchanging the PRB for a higher-pressure balloon (e.g., 71–80 cm H₂O instead of 61–70 cm H₂O) or adding fluid to the system. Listed by the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence as an option for recurrent SUI due to atrophy.[32]

  • PRB herniation through the external inguinal ring is a correctable cause of AUS malfunction in ~3.2% of patients — accessible at revision and often missed.[54]
  • Loh-Doyle 2020 identified predictors of device-related complications after isolated PRB exchange — radiation, prior revision, and small cuff size are among the higher-risk profiles.[55]

Higher-pressure balloons may accelerate erosion in atrophic / compromised tissue — most modern series favor complete device replacement + capsulotomy over isolated PRB upsizing.

"Drain and retain" the old PRB. When a revision needs a new balloon but the old PRB is densely adherent in the space of Retzius, the existing balloon can be emptied and intentionally left in situ rather than dissected out, sparing a hazardous retropubic dissection near the bladder, iliac vessels, and bowel; a fresh PRB is placed (typically high submuscular or contralateral). Aspirate all fluid, place the tubing on traction, and transect it proximally to defunctionalize the balloon. Cefalu et al. reported AUS and IPP balloons/reservoirs drained-and-retained with infection rates matching virgin implants (1.8% vs 1.5%, p = 0.88);[69] a 7-center IPP series (Pereira et al., 2026) found no complications attributable to retained reservoirs at ~12.6 months.[70] Contraindicated when explanting for infection (nidus risk), and a retained intraperitoneal balloon can present years later as small bowel obstruction — confirm an extraperitoneal position. The full evidence is collated on the penile prosthesis revision-scenarios page.

8. Urethral Wrapping / Tissue Interposition​

Using small intestinal submucosa (SIS) or other biomaterials as a wrap around the urethra before cuff placement to add bulk and serve as a buffer. Trost / Elliott series (n = 8 with multiple prior AUS failures / erosions): 38% completely dry at median 12.4 mo; 37.5% required explantation (2 erosion, 1 infection); prior radiation accounted for 80% of failures; temporary postoperative retention in all. Reserved for the most complex salvage cases — carries the highest complication rate of any revision strategy.[33]

9. Complete vs. Partial Device Replacement​

A key decision at revision is whether to replace only the malfunctioning component or the entire device. Evidence increasingly favors complete device replacement:

  • Complete change associated with significantly higher 3-month continence (83.3% vs. 63.3%, OR 2.7, p = 0.03) and better 5-year reoperation-free survival (82.2% vs. 69.6%, p = 0.03)[22]
  • Trend toward improved 3-year device survival with entire device replacement vs. single component (76% vs. 60%, p = 0.11)[23]
  • When a long interval has passed since initial implantation, complete replacement is recommended due to device aging and deterioration[25]

Salvage After Erosion or Infection​

Management of AUS erosion requires a staged approach:[24][25]

Step 1 — Explantation of all device components. Performing in situ urethroplasty at the time of explantation significantly reduces subsequent stricture formation (38% vs. 85%, p = 0.047) and facilitates future reimplantation (54% vs. 15% underwent secondary AUS, p = 0.04). Notably, urethral reapproximation without formal urethroplasty was associated with increased stricture risk (OR 4.2, p < 0.05).[24][34]

Step 2 — Delayed reimplantation, typically at a median of 9 months after explantation.[35]

Outcomes of Salvage Reimplantation​

OutcomeResult
5-year device survival after salvage68% (vs. 76% for primary, p = 0.38)[35]
Future erosion risk vs. virgin cases4× higher (14.3% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.02)[36]
Repeat erosion / re-explantation in salvage cohort~40% in one large series[24]
Functioning salvage AUS at last follow-up36% of erosion patients[24]
Restoration of baseline continence at 2nd/3rd revision89%[37]

Salvage Options for Patients Not Candidates for Reimplantation​

For patients with severely compromised urethral tissue who cannot undergo further AUS placement:

  • Permanent urethral ligation (PUL) with suprapubic tube drainage achieved continence in 90% of patients (mean age 75), with 55% experiencing complications (mostly Clavien-Dindo Grade II–III). Over 30 months of follow-up, most patients reported improved quality of life.[38]
  • Bladder neck closure with catheterizable stoma or supravesical diversion remains an option for the most refractory cases.

Sequential Salvage Paradigm​

A proposed sequential approach to maximize the duration of AUS-based incontinence therapy:[30][39]

  1. Primary standard bulbar cuff → if failure occurs →
  2. Distal double cuff or cuff downsizing/relocation → if failure occurs →
  3. Transcorporal cuff placement → if failure occurs →
  4. Permanent urethral ligation or urinary diversion

A prospective comparison of distal double cuff (DC) vs. transcorporal cuff (TC) in salvage settings showed comparable continence (88%/94% social continence for DC vs. 72%/100% for TC, p = NS) and similar explantation-free survival.[39]

Key Principles of Revision and Salvage​

  • Outcomes of secondary AUS implantation are comparable to primary implantation (5-year durability ~80–88%); salvage of a good outcome is achievable even after multiple revisions[37]
  • Capsulotomy + same-size cuff replacement is increasingly favored for NOMECA; what was historically called "urethral atrophy" is in large part capsular constriction + PRB material failure, and the hourglass deformity resolves on capsule release[51][52]
  • Measure the urethra after capsule release, not before — pre-capsulotomy circumference is the compressed (artifactual) size and leads to inappropriate downsizing[52]
  • Complete device replacement appears superior to partial replacement for both mechanical and non-mechanical failures[22][23]
  • Tandem cuff placement yields favorable continence outcomes among revision techniques, but cadaver-model and database data suggest some of the benefit reflects more-proximal placement and selection bias rather than the dual-cuff mechanism itself[27][44][45]
  • Transcorporal cuff placement has lower infection (OR 0.33) and erosion (OR 0.35) but higher revision rate (OR 2.99); does not eliminate erosion risk in irradiated patients[30][31][47]
  • Sequential salvage: distal double cuff first, then transcorporal if DC fails — maximizes total duration of AUS-based therapy[39]
  • In situ urethroplasty at explantation for erosion significantly reduces stricture formation and improves the likelihood of successful reimplantation[34]
  • Patients undergoing second or third AUS implantation can achieve revision-free survival comparable to their primary device; multiple risk factors (radiation + prior revision + large cuff) substantially reduce durability[20]

Special Populations​

Post-radiation: Earlier device failure but still meaningfully effective; patients should be counseled on reduced durability and higher erosion risk.[20]

Neurogenic bladder: AUS can be offered to selected patients with adequate upper extremity function; bladder storage parameters must be optimized (often with antimuscarinic therapy or Botox) before implantation to avoid unsafe storage pressures with a competent outlet.[7][21]

Concurrent penile prosthesis: Simultaneous or staged implantation can be safely performed in experienced hands; careful attention to scrotal pump positioning avoids device-on-device interference.[21]

Women: See the dedicated Female AUS (Bladder Neck Placement) section below.

Postoperative Management​

  • Deactivation period: Device remains deactivated for 4–8 weeks (typically 6 weeks) to allow tissue healing around the cuff before first activation[8]
  • Activation visit: Clinician confirms wound healing and trains patient on pump cycling technique
  • Patient ID card: Patients carry a permanent card identifying the implant; emergency staff must be informed — no urethral catheter or instrument should be passed without first deactivating the device
  • MRI compatibility: Varies by component generation; device identification and manufacturer consultation required before any MRI

Female AUS (Bladder Neck Placement)​

The AMS 800 in women is placed around the bladder neck, not the bulbar urethra. It is a high-acuity salvage operation for severely compromised outlet function — distinct enough in indication, anatomy, technique, sizing, and outcome profile that it is best treated as its own operation rather than a sex-modified version of the male procedure.

Indications​

The 2023 AUA/SUFU guideline lists AUS alongside obstructing autologous pubovaginal sling (PVS) and bladder neck closure as options for women with a severely compromised bladder outlet.[56]

  • Failed prior anti-incontinence surgery — The 2015 ICS Consensus and the 2023 AUA/SUFU guideline position AUS as a salvage option in women with persistent SUI after midurethral sling failure, particularly when residual urethral mobility is absent. Expert consensus recommends referral after a maximum of two prior surgical procedures; erosion and revision risk rises with each additional intervention.[56][57][58]
  • Severe intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) — low urethral closure pressure (or low VLPP), loss of urethral mobility, and a negative Marshall / Bonney test. This is the core pathophysiologic indication.[59]
  • Neurogenic SUI — women with neurogenic bladder and ISD (spina bifida, multiple sclerosis) are a defining population for female bladder-neck AUS.[60]

Contraindication of note: prior pelvic radiotherapy substantially raises infection and erosion risk and is treated as a contraindication by expert consensus.[57]

Surgical Approaches​

Three approaches have been described. The vaginal route is abandoned due to unacceptable infection and erosion rates; consensus favors a retropubic approach without opening the vagina (Grade B).[57]

1. Open Retropubic (Traditional)​

  • Low midline or Pfannenstiel incision; entry into the retropubic (Retzius) space.
  • Circumferential bladder-neck dissection, separating the posterior bladder neck from the anterior vaginal wall — the most technically demanding step, as there is no natural plane between urethra and vagina.[59]
  • Cuff placed around the bladder neck between periurethral fascia and vagina.
  • PRB placed in the retropubic space or between abdominal musculature and transversalis fascia.[57]
  • Control pump positioned in the labia majora.[60]

2. Laparoscopic​

  • Transperitoneal access to the Retzius space; cuff placed around the bladder neck between periurethral fascia and vagina as in the open approach.[61][62]
  • Largest single-center series (n = 74, mean follow-up ~45 months): 78% complete continence, 19% improvement, mean operative time ~120 min.[61]

3. Robot-Assisted​

Two variants:

  • Anterior approach — transperitoneal access to the Retzius space; an assistant's vaginal finger guides dissection of the vesicovaginal space.[63][64]
  • Posterior approach — dissection begins posterior to the bladder neck, potentially avoiding blind anterior dissection and reducing vaginal/bladder injury risk. Some centers add intraoperative cystoscopic monitoring to confirm the correct plane.[65][66]

The largest open-vs-robotic comparison (Dubois 2025, multicenter, n = 135) found robotic implantation associated with:[67]

OutcomeRoboticOpen
Intraoperative complications12.7%27.4%
Postoperative complications15.5%46.8%
Full continence83.3%62.3%
Explantation1.4%27.4%

Device Specifications in Women​

ParameterFemale bladder-neck valueNotes
Cuff sizeMedian 7.0 cm (typical range 6.5–8 cm); 5.5–9 cm in neurogenic seriesSubstantially larger than the male bulbar cuff (3.5–6 cm)[60][68]
PRB61–70 cmH₂O in most patients; 71–80 cmH₂O at surgeon discretionBladder neck tolerates higher pressure than bulbar urethra[57][68]
PRB fill volume22–27 mL (cuff empty); depends on cuff size[57]
Pump locationLabia majora (right or left)[60]
Activation4–6 weeks postoperatively[65][68]

Outcomes​

A meta-analysis of 964 women reported a mean complete continence rate of 80% (95% CI 72–87) at mean 22-month follow-up.[56] A systematic review of 17 case series reported complete continence rates of 61–100% across open, laparoscopic, and robotic approaches.[56][59]

Complications:

ComplicationRate (range)MeanSource
Mechanical failure2–47%~13%[56]
Vaginal / urethral erosion0–27%~9%[56][57]
Infection0–46%~7%[56]
Revision required6–44%~15%[56]
Explantation required2–44%~13%[56]

Long-term durability in neurological women: explantation-free survival >74% at 20 years, though approximately half require at least one revision by 5 years.[60]

Surgical volume and experience influence outcomes — the two largest open series report the most favorable results.[59] The robotic approach may offer visualization and deep-pelvic-access advantages, potentially reducing morbidity even during the learning curve.[63][67]

See Also​

Counseling Summary​

PointDetail
Social continence probability~80% (0–1 pad/day)
Complete dryness probability~50–60%
Revision likelihood at 10 years~50%
Patient satisfaction>90% would repeat the procedure
Device lifespanLifelong implant; manual operation required daily
Medical precautionMust deactivate before any urethral instrumentation

Videos​

Step-by-Step Placement of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter
AUA University (2023)
Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Transcorporal Approach
AUA University (2023)

References​

1. James MH, McCammon KA. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: a review. Int J Urol. 2014;21(6):536–43. PMID 24330141

2. Suarez OA, McCammon KA. The artificial urinary sphincter in the management of incontinence. Urology. 2016;92:14–9. PMID 26585699

3. Silva LA, Andriolo RB, Atallah ÁN, da Silva EM. Surgery for stress urinary incontinence due to presumed sphincter deficiency after prostate surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(9):CD008306. PMID 25218420

4. Oda S, Kuno H, Hiyama T, et al. Radiologic feature of complications after artificial urinary sphincter implantation following total prostatectomy. Abdom Radiol. 2024;49(7):2416–27. PMID 38642088

5. Mohammed A, Khan A, Shaikh T, Shergill IS, Junaid I. The artificial urinary sphincter. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2007;4(4):567–75. PMID 17605683

6. Natali AN, Fontanella CG, Carniel EL. Biomechanical analysis of the interaction phenomena between artificial urinary sphincter and urethral duct. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2020;36(3):e3308. PMID 31944552

7. Ginsberg DA, Boone TB, Cameron AP, et al. The AUA/SUFU guideline on adult neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction: treatment and follow-up. J Urol. 2021;206(5):1106–13. PMID 34495714

8. Chung E, Liao L, Kim JH, et al. The Asia-Pacific AMS800 artificial urinary sphincter consensus statement. Int J Urol. 2023;30(2):128–38. PMID 36337028

9. Lee R, Te AE, Kaplan SA, Sandhu JS. Temporal trends in adoption of and indications for the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2009;181(6):2622–7. PMID 19371912

10. Verbeke L, De Bruyn H, Jamaer C, et al. The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation. Int J Impot Res. 2025. doi:10.1038/s41443-025-01178-4

11. Sacco E, Marino F, Gandi C, et al. Transalbugineal artificial urinary sphincter: a refined implantation technique to improve surgical outcomes. J Clin Med. 2023;12(8):3021. PMID 37109357

12. Kaufman MR, Wood HM, Terlecki R, et al. The Artificial Urinary Sphincter Clinical Outcomes (AUSCO) trial: primary results. J Urol. 2025. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004796

13. Deruyver Y, Schillebeeckx C, Beels E, De Ridder D, Van der Aa F. Long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter implantation. World J Urol. 2022;40(2):497–503. PMID 34878596

14. Plata M, Zuluaga L, Santander J, et al. Performance of the artificial urinary sphincter implantation in men with urinary incontinence: results from a contemporary long-term real-world nationwide analysis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(7):1573–81. PMID 35694839

15. Tutolo M, Cornu JN, Bauer RM, et al. Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(2):710–18. PMID 30484893

16. Frazier RL, Jones ME, Hofer MD. Artificial urinary sphincter complications: a narrative review. J Clin Med. 2024;13(7):1913. PMID 38610676

17. Bentellis I, El-Akri M, Cornu JN, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of artificial urinary sphincter revision in nonneurological male patients. J Urol. 2021;206(5):1248–57. PMID 34191633

18. Lenfant L, Taillé Y, Chartier-Kastler E, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter implants in men: a national health care data system-based study to assess reinterventions in France. J Urol. 2025;213(2):217–27. PMID 39431880

19. Kaiho Y, Masuda H, Takei M, et al. Surgical and patient reported outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a multicenter, prospective, observational study. J Urol. 2018;199(1):245–50. PMID 28797677

20. Fuller TW, Ballon-Landa E, Gallo K, et al. Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and nonradiated cases. J Urol. 2020;204(1):110–14. PMID 32068505

21. Chung E. Artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the special populations: neurological, revision, concurrent penile prosthesis and female stress urinary incontinence groups. Asian J Androl. 2020;22(1):45–50. PMID 31729352

22. Cousin T, Peyronnet B, Bentellis I, et al. Which revision strategy is the best for non-mechanical failure of male artificial urinary sphincter? World J Urol. 2023;41(12):3663–3669. doi:10.1007/s00345-023-04670-y

23. Linder BJ, Viers BR, Ziegelmann MJ, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter mechanical failures — is it better to replace the entire device or just the malfunctioning component? J Urol. 2016;195(5):1523–1528. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.10.084

24. Findlay BL, Fadel A, Pence ST, et al. Natural history of artificial urinary sphincter erosion: long-term lower urinary tract outcomes and incontinence management. Urology. 2024;193:204–210. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2024.06.054

25. Kaiho Y, Oikawa M, Kusumoto H, et al. Treatment strategies for revision surgery of artificial urinary sphincter: a review. Int J Urol. 2024;31(12):1312–1320. doi:10.1111/iju.15569

26. Simhan J, Morey AF, Zhao LC, et al. Decreasing need for artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery by precise cuff sizing in men with spongiosal atrophy. J Urol. 2014;192(3):798–803. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.115

27. Eswara JR, Chan R, Vetter JM, et al. Revision techniques after artificial urinary sphincter failure in men: results from a multicenter study. Urology. 2015;86(1):176–80. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2015.04.023

28. DiMarco DS, Elliott DS. Tandem cuff artificial urinary sphincter as a salvage procedure following failed primary sphincter placement for the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence. J Urol. 2003;170(4 Pt 1):1252–4. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000085787.21140.db

29. Magera JS, Elliott DS. Tandem transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff salvage technique: surgical description and results. J Urol. 2007;177(3):1015–9. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.10.052

30. Guralnick ML, Miller E, Toh KL, Webster GD. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement in cases requiring revision for erosion and urethral atrophy. J Urol. 2002;167(5):2075–8. PMID 11956443

31. Moser DC, Kaufman MR, Milam DF, et al. Impact of radiation and transcorporeal artificial sphincter placement in patients with prior urethral cuff erosion: results from a retrospective multicenter analysis. J Urol. 2018;200(6):1338–1343. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.06.069

32. Averbeck MA, Woodhouse C, Comiter C, et al. Surgical treatment of post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence in adult men: report from the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38(1):398–406. doi:10.1002/nau.23845

33. Trost L, Elliott D. Small intestinal submucosa urethral wrap at the time of artificial urinary sphincter placement as a salvage treatment option for patients with persistent/recurrent incontinence following multiple prior sphincter failures and erosions. Urology. 2012;79(4):933–8. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2011.09.003

34. Rozanski AT, Tausch TJ, Ramirez D, et al. Immediate urethral repair during explantation prevents stricture formation after artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion. J Urol. 2014;192(2):442–6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.007

35. Linder BJ, de Cogain M, Elliott DS. Long-term device outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter reimplantation following prior explantation for erosion or infection. J Urol. 2014;191(3):734–8. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2013.08.089

36. Lai HH, Boone TB. Complex artificial urinary sphincter revision and reimplantation cases — how do they fare compared to virgin cases? J Urol. 2012;187(3):951–5. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.10.153

37. Raj GV, Peterson AC, Toh KL, Webster GD. Outcomes following revisions and secondary implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2005;173(4):1242–5. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000152315.91444.d0

38. Van Dyke M, Ortiz N, Baumgarten A, et al. Permanent urethral ligation after AUS cuff erosion: is it ready for prime time? Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(1):211–218. doi:10.1002/nau.24535

39. Maurer V, Dahlem R, Rosenbaum CM, et al. Distal double cuff vs transcorporal cuff as salvage options — a prospective analysis of different artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800) implantation sites. Urology. 2019;133:234–239. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.07.018

40. Krughoff K, Nosé BD, Peterson AC. Artificial urinary sphincter cuff downsizing improves continence and patient satisfaction in cases of sub-cuff atrophy. J Urol. 2023;209(4):742–751. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003138

41. Saffarian A, Walsh K, Walsh IK, Stone AR. Urethral atrophy after artificial urinary sphincter placement: is cuff downsizing effective? J Urol. 2003;169(2):567–9. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000046665.89269.f7

42. Couillard DR, Vapnek JM, Stone AR. Proximal artificial sphincter cuff repositioning for urethral atrophy incontinence. Urology. 1995;45(4):653–6. doi:10.1016/s0090-4295(99)80058-2

43. O'Connor RC, Lyon MB, Guralnick ML, Bales GT. Long-term follow-up of single versus double cuff artificial urinary sphincter insertion for the treatment of severe postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Urology. 2008;71(1):90–3. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2007.08.017

44. Manka MG, Wright EJ. Does use of a second cuff improve artificial urinary sphincter effectiveness? Evaluation using a comparative cadaver model. J Urol. 2015;194(6):1688–91. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.102

45. Yafi FA, DeLay KJ, Stewart C, et al. Device survival after primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2017;197(3 Pt 1):759–765. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.08.107

46. Ahyai SA, Ludwig TA, Dahlem R, et al. Outcomes of single- vs double-cuff artificial urinary sphincter insertion in low- and high-risk profile male patients with severe stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int. 2016;118(4):625–32. doi:10.1111/bju.13449

47. Domínguez Gutiérrez A, Hevia Palacios M, López Curtis DA, et al. Transcorporal cuff-placement in artificial urinary sphincter surgery. A systematic review. Urology. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2025.11.222

48. Wiedemann L, Cornu JN, Haab E, et al. Transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter implantation as a salvage surgical procedure for challenging cases of male stress urinary incontinence: surgical technique and functional outcomes in a contemporary series. BJU Int. 2013;112(8):1163–8. doi:10.1111/bju.12386

49. Ortiz NM, Wolfe AR, Baumgarten AS, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion heat map shows similar anatomical characteristics for transcorporal and standard approach. J Urol. 2020;204(5):1027–1032. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000001148

50. Mock S, Dmochowski RR, Brown ET, et al. The impact of urethral risk factors on transcorporeal artificial urinary sphincter erosion rates and device survival. J Urol. 2015;194(6):1692–6. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.088

51. Bugeja S, Ivaz SL, Frost A, Andrich DE, Mundy AR. Urethral atrophy after implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter: fact or fiction? BJU Int. 2016;117(4):669–76. doi:10.1111/bju.13324

52. Terlecki RP, Wilson SK. A new paradigm for surgical revision of the artificial urinary sphincter for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: Wilson's Workshop 11. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34(1):37–43. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-0307-8

53. Heah NH, Tan RBW. Management of urethral atrophy after implantation of artificial urinary sphincter: what are the weaknesses? Asian J Androl. 2020;22(1):60–63. doi:10.4103/aja.aja_110_19

54. Khouri RK, Baumgarten AS, Ortiz NM, et al. Pressure regulating balloon herniation: a correctable cause of artificial urinary sphincter malfunction. Urology. 2020;139:188–192. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2020.01.036

55. Loh-Doyle JC, Nazemi A, Ashrafi A, et al. Predictors of device-related complications after exchange of the pressure-regulating balloon in men with an artificial urinary sphincter. Urology. 2020;135:154–158. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2019.09.026

56. Kobashi KC, Vasavada S, Bloschichak A, et al. Updates to surgical treatment of female stress urinary incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU guideline (2023). J Urol. 2023;209(6):1091–1098. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000003435

57. Biardeau X, Aharony S, AUS Consensus Group, 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

58. Chartier-Kastler E, Van Kerrebroeck P, Olianas R, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800) implantation for women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: a technique for insiders? BJU Int. 2011;107(10):1618–26. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.2010.09610.x

59. Peyronnet B, O'Connor E, Khavari R, et al. AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter in female patients with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38 Suppl 4:S28–S41. doi:10.1002/nau.23833

60. Phé V, Léon P, Granger B, et al. Stress urinary incontinence in female neurological patients: long-term functional outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter (AMS 800) implantation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):764–769. doi:10.1002/nau.23019

61. Bracchitta D, Costa P, Borojeni S, et al. Laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence: update on 13 years' experience in a single centre. BJU Int. 2019;123(5A):E14–E19. doi:10.1111/bju.14653

62. Ferreira C, Brychaert PE, Menard J, Mandron E. Laparoscopic implantation of artificial urinary sphincter in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency: mid-term outcomes. Int J Urol. 2017;24(4):308–313. doi:10.1111/iju.13296

63. Peyronnet B, Capon G, Belas O, et al. Robot-assisted AMS-800 artificial urinary sphincter bladder neck implantation in female patients with stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2019;75(1):169–175. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.036

64. Biardeau X, Rizk J, Marcelli F, Flamand V. Robot-assisted laparoscopic approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation in 11 women with urinary stress incontinence: surgical technique and initial experience. Eur Urol. 2015;67(5):937–42. doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2014.12.041

65. Gondran-Tellier B, Boissier R, Baboudjian M, et al. Robot-assisted implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter, the AMS-800, via a posterior approach to the bladder neck in women with intrinsic sphincter deficiency. BJU Int. 2019;124(6):1077–1080. doi:10.1111/bju.14884

66. Broudeur L, Loubersac T, Le Normand L, et al. New technique of robot-assisted laparoscopic artificial urinary sphincter implantation in female by a posterior approach with intraoperative cystoscopic monitoring. World J Urol. 2021;39(11):4221–4226. doi:10.1007/s00345-021-03739-w

67. Dubois A, Capon G, Belas O, et al. Open vs. robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence: a multicenter comparative study. J Clin Med. 2025;14(1):284. doi:10.3390/jcm14010284

68. Cotte J, Dechartres A, Mozer P, et al. Long-term device survival after a first implantation of AMS800 for stress urinary incontinence: comparison between men and women. Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42(1):80–89. doi:10.1002/nau.25047

69. Cefalu CA, Deng X, Zhao LC, et al. Safety of the "drain and retain" option for defunctionalized urologic prosthetic balloons and reservoirs during artificial urinary sphincter and inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: 5-year experience. Urology. 2013;82(6):1436–9. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2013.07.038

70. Pereira TA, Good J, Rust JO, et al. Early clinical outcomes of the "drain and retain" maneuver in inflatable penile prosthesis revision surgery: a multi-institutional review. J Sex Med. 2026;23(3):qdag024. doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdag024

71. Fishman IJ, Shabsigh R, Scott FB. Experience with the artificial urinary sphincter model AS800 in 148 patients. J Urol. 1989;141(2):307–10. doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(17)40748-8

72. Gaspar CB, Pinto VBP, Junior JB, et al. Preparing urologists for urethral instrumentation in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter: results from a pragmatic, simulation-based intervention. Neurourol Urodyn. 2026;45(1):162–68. doi:10.1002/nau.70162