{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,22]],"date-time":"2026-04-22T17:17:23Z","timestamp":1776878243576,"version":"3.51.2"},"reference-count":43,"publisher":"Wiley","issue":"6","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2014,2,16]],"date-time":"2014-02-16T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1392508800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/termsAndConditions#vor"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int J of Urology"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,6]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:p>The artificial urinary sphincter remains the gold standard for treatment of post\u2010prostatectomy urinary incontinence. The <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AMS<\/jats:styled-content> 800 (<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">A<\/jats:styled-content>merican <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>edical <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">S<\/jats:styled-content>ystems, <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>innetonka, <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">MN<\/jats:styled-content>, <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">USA<\/jats:styled-content>) is the most commonly implanted artificial urinary sphincter. Having been on the market for almost 40 years, there is an abundance of literature regarding its use, but no recent review has been published. We reviewed the current literature regarding the indications, surgical principles, outcomes and complications of artificial urinary sphincter implantation for stress urinary incontinence after prostatectomy. A <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">P<\/jats:styled-content>ub<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>ed search was carried out for articles on the artificial urinary sphincter from 1995 to present. The review was centered on articles related to the use of the <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">AMS<\/jats:styled-content> 800 for stress urinary incontinence in males after prostatectomy. Relevant articles were reviewed. The majority of patients will achieve social continence (1 pad per day) after artificial urinary sphincter implantation; however, rates of total continence (no pad usage) are significantly lower. Patient satisfaction outcomes average greater than 80% in most series. Potential complications requiring reoperation include infection (0.5\u201310.6%) and urethral erosion (2.9\u201312%). Revision surgeries are most commonly as a result of urethral atrophy, which ranges from 1.6 to 11.4%. The 5\u2010year <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">K<\/jats:styled-content>aplan\u2013<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>eier freedom from reoperation ranges from 50 to 79%, while the 10\u2010year <jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">K<\/jats:styled-content>aplan\u2013<jats:styled-content style=\"fixed-case\">M<\/jats:styled-content>eier freedom from mechanical failure is 64%. The artificial urinary sphincter is a reliable device with good outcomes. As expected with any prosthetic device, complications including mechanical failure, infection, erosion and recurrent incontinence remain significant concerns. Despite known complications, the patient satisfaction rates after artificial urinary sphincter implantation remain high. Appropriate patient counseling and adherence to surgical principles are imperative.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1111\/iju.12392","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2014,2,17]],"date-time":"2014-02-17T11:30:30Z","timestamp":1392636630000},"page":"536-543","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":74,"title":["Artificial urinary sphincter for post\u2010prostatectomy incontinence: A review"],"prefix":"10.1111","volume":"21","author":[{"given":"Mary H","family":"James","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Virginia Urology  Richmond Virginia USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Kurt A","family":"McCammon","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Eastern Virginia Medical School  Norfolk Virginia USA"}],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"311","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2014,2,16]]},"reference":[{"key":"e_1_2_16_2_1","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"375","DOI":"10.1016\/S0094-0143(21)00108-7","article-title":"The artificial sphincter in the management of incontinence in the male","volume":"5","author":"Scott FB","year":"1978","journal-title":"Urol. Clin. N. Am."},{"key":"e_1_2_16_3_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)63557-2"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_4_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2009.01.113"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_5_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2006.10.062"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_6_1","unstructured":"Best practice policy statement on urologic surgery antimicrobial prophylaxis(September 2008). [Cited 22 December 2012.] Available from URL:http:\/\/www.auanet.org\/education\/guidelines\/antimicrobial\u2010prophylaxis.cfm"},{"issue":"2","key":"e_1_2_16_7_1","first-page":"256","article-title":"A new approach for implantation of artificial urinary sphincter: upper transverse scrotal incision","volume":"165","author":"Wilson SK","year":"2001","journal-title":"J. Urol."},{"key":"e_1_2_16_8_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1159\/000019817"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_9_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)65408-9"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_10_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000152315.91444.d0"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_11_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2008.01.048"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_12_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)67285-0"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_13_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)64496-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_14_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)65981-2"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_15_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)65668-6"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_16_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2007.09.009"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_17_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2006.09.021"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_18_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)65772-2"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_19_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2006.10.026"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_20_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2008.10.037"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_21_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2011.02.021"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_22_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)69091-8"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_23_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1464-4096.2001.01759.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_24_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1464-410x.2000.00484.x"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_25_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0090-4295(96)00245-2"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_26_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000118245.66976.e1"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_27_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ucl.2010.12.011"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_28_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(17)36057-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_29_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(01)65573-3"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_30_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0090-4295(03)00572-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_31_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0022-5347(05)65088-4"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_32_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2011.06.062"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_33_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000155624.48337.a5"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_34_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1186\/1752-1947-6-94"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_35_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2008.11.011"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_36_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0090-4295(01)01655-7"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_37_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2012.02.006"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_38_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.purol.2012.06.011"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_39_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2007.07.022"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_40_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000132835.48647.23"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_41_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000154782.86431.41"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_42_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.ju.0000121413.62521.cc"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_43_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2008.10.073"},{"key":"e_1_2_16_44_1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.urology.2010.03.086"}],"container-title":["International Journal of Urology"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/api.wiley.com\/onlinelibrary\/tdm\/v1\/articles\/10.1111%2Fiju.12392","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/pdf\/10.1111\/iju.12392","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,10,3]],"date-time":"2023-10-03T04:06:28Z","timestamp":1696305988000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1111\/iju.12392"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2014,2,16]]},"references-count":43,"journal-issue":{"issue":"6","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2014,6]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1111\/iju.12392"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/iju.12392","archive":["Portico"],"relation":{},"ISSN":["0919-8172","1442-2042"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0919-8172","type":"print"},{"value":"1442-2042","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2014,2,16]]}}}