Sandhu JS, Breyer B, Comiter C, Eastham JA, Gomez C, Kirages DJ, et al. Incontinence after prostate treatment: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol. 2019;202(2):369–78. AUA Guidline Statement on evaluation and treatment of incontinence following prostate treatment, including treatment for benign and malignant conditions.Guidelines include the most up-to-date literature supporting an algorithmic approach to the male patient presenting with incontinence following prostate treatment.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Litwiller SE, Kim KB, Fone PD, 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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. Long term (30 year) data on functional outcomes of primary artificial urinary sphincter placement, including revision free survival of 62% at 5 years.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bentellis I, El-Akri M, Cornu JN, Brierre T, Cousin T, Gaillard V, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of artificial urinary sphincter revision in nonneurological male patients. J Urol. 2021;206(5):1248–57. Multicenter retrospective review on risk factors associated with AUS revision surgery. >50% were reported as nonmechanical failures, with a 10 year device survival of 50%.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Chung E, Cartmill R. Diagnostic challenges in the evaluation of persistent or recurrent urinary incontinence after artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in patients after prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2013;112(Suppl 2):32–5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dobberfuhl AD, Comiter CV. A systematic approach to the evaluation and management of the failed artificial urinary sphincter. Curr Urol Rep. 2017;18(3):18.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brucker BM, Demirtas A, Fong E, Kelly C, Nitti VW. Artificial urinary sphincter revision: the role of ultrasound. Urology. 2013;82(6):1424–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Rose SC, Hansen ME, Webster GD, Zakrzewski C, Cohan RH, Dunnick NR. Artificial urinary sphincters: plain radiography of malfunction and complications. Radiology. 1988;168(2):403–8.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Brant WO, Erickson BA, Elliott SP, Powell C, Alsikafi N, McClung C, et al. Risk factors for erosion of artificial urinary sphincters: a multicenter prospective study. Urology. 2014;84(4):934–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Fuller TW, Ballon-Landa E, Gallo K, Smith TG 3rd, Ajay D, Westney OL, 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. Risk factors for device failure following AUS revision surgery are understudied.This multi-institutional retrospective study compares device survival in radiated and nonradiated cases and identifies specific risk factors associated with poor survival.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kaufman MR, Milam DF, Johnsen NV, Cleves MA, Broghammer JA, Brant WO, et al. Prior radiation therapy decreases time to idiopathic erosion of artificial urinary sphincter: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2018;199(4):1037–41. Multi-institutional study on impact of radiation therapy on idiopathic device erosion. Irradiated patients were found to a shorter interval to device erosion compared to nonirradiated patients.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McGeady JB, McAninch JW, Truesdale MD, Blaschko SD, Kenfield S, Breyer BN. Artificial urinary sphincter placement in compromised urethras and survival: a comparison of virgin, radiated and reoperative cases. J Urol. 2014;192(6):1756–61.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Srivastava A, Joice GA, Patel HD, Manka MG, Sopko NA, Wright EJ. Impact of adjuvant radiation on artificial urinary sphincter durability in postprostatectomy patients. Urology. 2018;114:212–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hird AE, Radomski SB. Artificial urinary sphincter erosion after radical prostatectomy in patients treated with and without radiation. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(5-6):E354–8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rivera ME, Linder BJ, Ziegelmann MJ, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. The impact of prior radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter device survival. J Urol. 2016;195(4 Pt 1):1033–7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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. Single-center retrospective review of 527 patients assessing impact of radiation on AUS device outcomes. There was no statistically significant difference in device survival or outcomes such as erosion, mechanical failure/atrophy.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Anusionwu II, Wright EJ. Indications for revision of artificial urinary sphincter and modifiable risk factors for device-related morbidity. Neurourol Urodyn. 2013;32(1):63–5.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Viers BR, Mathur S, Hofer MD, Dugi DD 3rd, Pagliara TJ, Singla N, et al. Clinical risk factors associated with urethral atrophy. Urology. 2017;103:230–3.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Webster GD, Sherman ND. Management of male incontinence following artificial urinary sphincter failure. Curr Opin Urol. 2005;15(6):386–90.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Biardeau X, Aharony S, Group AUSC, Campeau L, Corcos J. Artificial urinary sphincter: report of the 2015 consensus conference. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(Suppl 2):S8–24.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ziegelmann MJ, Linder BJ, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Rivera ME, Elliott DS. Risk factors for subsequent urethral atrophy in patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter placement. Turk J Urol. 2019;45(2):124–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Krughoff K, Nose BD, Peterson AC. Artificial urinary sphincter cuff downsizing improves continence and patient satisfaction in cases of sub-cuff atrophy. J Urol. 2023;209(4):742–51. Single-center retrospective review of AUS revision, including objective criteria for diagnosis of sub cuff atrophy, as well as outcomes of cuff downsizing for isolated subcuff atrophy.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Simhan J, Morey AF, Zhao LC, Tausch TJ, Scott JF, Hudak SJ, 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.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bergeson RL, Yi YA, Baker RC, Ward EE, Davenport MT, Morey AF. Urethral atrophy is now a rare cause for artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery in the contemporary 3.5 cm cuff era. Transl Androl Urol. 2020;9(1):50–5.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Rothschild J, Chang Kit L, Seltz L, Wang L, Kaufman M, Dmochowski R, et al. Difference between urethral circumference and artificial urinary sphincter cuff size, and its effect on postoperative incontinence. J Urol. 2014;191(1):138–42.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Linder BJ, Viers BR, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter mechanical failures-is it better to replace the entire device or just the malfunctioning component? J Urol. 2016;195(5):1523–8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang DY, Linder BJ, Miller AR, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Can time to failure predict the faulty component in artificial urinary sphincter device malfunctions? Int J Urol. 2018;25(2):146–50.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kim SP, Sarmast Z, Daignault S, Faerber GJ, McGuire EJ, Latini JM. Long-term durability and functional outcomes among patients with artificial urinary sphincters: a 10-year retrospective review from the University of Michigan. J Urol. 2008;179(5):1912–6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Agarwal DK, Linder BJ, Elliott DS. Artificial urinary sphincter urethral erosions: temporal patterns, management, and incidence of preventable erosions. Indian J Urol. 2017;33(1):26–9.

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Linder BJ, Piotrowski JT, Ziegelmann MJ, Rivera ME, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Perioperative complications following artificial urinary sphincter placement. J Urol. 2015;194(3):716–20.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ziegelmann MJ, Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Viers BR, Rangel LJ, Elliott DS. Outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter placement in octogenarians. Int J Urol. 2016;23(5):419–23.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gacci M, Sakalis VI, Karavitakis M, Cornu JN, Gratzke C, Herrmann TRW, et al. European Association of Urology guidelines on male urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2022;82(4):387–98. European Association of Urology guidelines on evaluation and treatment of male urinary incontinence.These evidence-based guidelines include the most up-to-date literature that support the treatment algorithm for male urinary incontinence.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lai HH, Hsu EI, Boone TB. Urodynamic testing in