Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Current Status and Future Innovations

  • Post-Prostatectomy and Acquired Voiding Dysfunction (V Tse, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Bladder Dysfunction Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract 

Purpose of Review

The artificial urinary sphincter has remained the gold standard treatment for male stress urinary incontinence since its first iteration by American Medical Systems in 1972. It is the treatment of choice for moderate to severe incontinence, as well as post-radiation incontinence. Understanding the anatomy and physiology of male stress incontinence, as well as the indications and outcomes for artificial urinary sphincter implantation, remains integral to a discussion of sphincter technology.

Recent Findings

While the basic artificial urinary sphincter mechanism has not changed in decades, burgeoning innovations in recent years herald a new generation of sphincter technology. In addition to artificial sphincter innovation, the future of male stress urinary incontinence treatment will include the integration of regenerative treatments for patients’ native sphincters. As opposed to our current treatment options, which manage the symptoms, the aim of cell-based therapies is to truly reverse the primary pathophysiology of intrinsic sphincter deficiency thereby treating the cause of stress urinary incontinence. For some, regenerative medicine may even make artificial urinary sphincters obsolete.

Summary

Savvy technologic enhancements will inevitably deliver a positive impact on men with stress urinary incontinence and continue to substantially improve quality of life for decades to come.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Montague DK. Evolution of implanted devices for urinary incontinence. Cleve Clin Q. 1984;51(2):405–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. •• Biardeau X, Aharony S, Campeau L, Corcos J. Artificial urinary sphincter: report of the 2015 consensus conference. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(S2):S8–24. This consensus conference laid out a comprehensiveset of pre-, peri-, and postoperative guidelines for AUS placement.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. MR Kaufman. “Functional and surgical anatomy in male and female incontinence surgery,” in Textbook of Prosthetics in Urology, 1st ed., 2021. in press.

  4. •• Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, Eastham JA, Gomez C, Kirages DJ, Kittle C, Lucioni A, Nitti VW, Stoffel JT, Westney OL, Murad MH, McCammon K. Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2019;202(2):369–378. https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000314. The AUA’s formal guideline on incontinence after prostate treatment.

  5. • Bhalla RG, Furuyama W, Calvert JK, Ball M, Dropkin BM, Milam DF, Kaufman MR, Johnsen NV. Impact of health literacy on satisfaction following male prosthetic surgery. Urology.  2022;164:255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2021.12.031. Evidence that increased patient health literacy is associated with increased patient satisfaction after prosthetic surgery.

  6. Reus C, et al. Evaluation of the 24-h pad weight test as continence rate assessment tool after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: a Swedish retrospective cohort study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(6):1585–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Inouye BM, Boysen WR, Barton GJ, Peterson AC. Use of isotonic contrast solution in the artificial urinary sphincter does not impact device longevity. Neurourol Urodyn. 2021;40(4):1056–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Choinière R, Violette PD, Morin M, Tu LM, Guyatt GH, Reed C, Philie CA, Legault B, Beaudry MM, Ahmed MM, Richard PO. Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol Focus. 2022;8(4):1042–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.09.007.

  9. Trigo Rocha F, Gomes CM, Mitre AI, Arap S, and Srougi M. A prospective study evaluating the efficacy of the artificial sphincter AMS 800 for the treatment of postradical prostatectomy urinary incontinence and the correlation between preoperative urodynamic and surgical outcomes. Urology. 2008;71(1):85–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.09.009.

  10. Litwiller SE, Kim KB, Fone PD, DeVere White RW, Stone AR. Post-prostatectomy incontinence and the artificial urinary sphincter: a long-term study of patient satisfaction and criteria for success. J Urol. 1996;156(6):1975–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Gousse AE, Madjar S, Lambert M-M, Fishman IJ. Artificial urinary sphincter for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: Long-term subjective results. J Urol. 2001;166(5):1755–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-021-03877-1.

  13. • Bhanvadia RR, et al. Restoration of continence after prostatectomy is associated with weight loss: a pilot study. Urology. 2021;158:162–8. An interesting study indicating that patient continence is associated with a decreased post-implant BMI.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Guillaumier S, et al. Radiotherapy is associated with reduced continence outcomes following implantation of the artificial urinary sphincter in men with post-radical prostatectomy incontinence. Urol Ann. 2017;9(3):253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kretschmer A, et al. Complications and short-term explantation rate following artificial urinary sphincter implantation: results from a large middle European multi-institutional case series. Urol Int. 2016;97(2):205–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. •• Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at Mayo Clinic. Urology. 2015;86(3):602–7. Landmark study on long-term durability and complications of AUS placement.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chertack NA, et al. Long-term lower urinary tract sequelae following AUS cuff erosion. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(1):229–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bates AS, Martin RM, Terry TR. Complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement after radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy: a meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2015;116(4):623–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. • Mamane J, et al. Impact of radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients: a multicenter study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2022;41(1):332–9. Recent evidence strengthening the association with long-term AUS complications and a history of pelvic radiation.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Viers BR, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term quality of life and functional outcomes among primary and secondary artificial urinary sphincter implantations in men with stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2016;196(3):838–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. •• Hebert KJ, Linder BJ, Morrisson GT, Latuche LR, Elliott DS. A comparison of artificial urinary sphincter outcomes after primary implantation and first revision surgery. Asian J Urol. 2021;8(3):298–302. Study showed that AUS device survival decreases for revision devices vs. first-time implants. This trend was driven by replacement device infections and erosions.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. •• Fuller TW, et al. Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and nonradiated cases. J Urol. 2020;204(1):110–4. Second and third AUS devices have the same device survival in the absence of other risk factors for erosion.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Manka MG, Linder BJ, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. The impact of prior external beam radiation therapy on device outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(1):67–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. •• Giammò A, et al. A novel artificial urinary sphincter (VICTO®) for the management of postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: description of the surgical technique and preliminary results from a multicenter series. Urol Int. 2021;105(5–6):414–20. This novel AUS device incorporates dynamic pressure adjustment and in-office adjustment mechanisms.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hart ML, Izeta A, Herrera-Imbroda B, Amend B, Brinchmann JE. Cell therapy for stress urinary incontinence. Tissue Eng - Part B Rev. 2015;21(4):365–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Vinarov A, et al. Cell therapy for stress urinary incontinence: present-day frontiers. J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2018;12(2):e1108–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams JK, Dean A, Badlani G, Andersson KE. Regenerative medicine therapies for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2016;196(6):1619–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Peters KM, et al. Autologous muscle derived cells for treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. J Urol. 2014;192(2):469–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jankowski RJ, et al. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the safety and efficacy of autologous muscle derived cells in female subjects with stress urinary incontinence. Int Urol Nephrol. 2018;50(12):2153–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211 Medical Center Dr, Nashville, TN, 37215, USA

    George E. Koch & Melissa R. Kaufman

Authors
  1. George E. Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Melissa R. Kaufman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George E. Koch.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Competing Interests

Dr. Koch has no financial or non-financial disclosures.

Dr. Kaufman has no financial disclosures.

Dr. Kaufman is the national PI for the Artificial Urinary Sphincter Clinical Outcomes (AUSCO) clinical trial (NCT04088331).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Post-Prostatectomy and Acquired Voiding Dysfunction

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Koch, G.E., Kaufman, M.R. The Role of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Current Status and Future Innovations. Curr Bladder Dysfunct Rep 17, 219–223 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-022-00670-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11884-022-00670-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation