Risk Factors for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Explantation and Erosion in Male Nonneurological Patients.

PURPOSE: This study was performed to assess the risk factors for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) explantation in a large multicenter cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records for all 1,233 implantations of the AMS-800 AUS device in male nonneurological patients from 2005 to 2020 across 13 French centers. Patients with neurological conditions were excluded from the study. To identify factors associated with explantation-free survival, survival analysis was performed. Explantation was defined as the complete removal of the device, whereas revision referred to the replacement of the device or its components. RESULTS: The study included 1,107 patients, of whom 281 underwent AUS explantation. The median survival without explantation was 83 months. The leading causes of explantation were infection and erosion. Univariate analysis revealed several significant risk factors for explantation: age above 75 years (34.6% in the explanted group vs. 25.8% in the nonexplanted group, P=0.007), history of radiotherapy (43.5% vs. 31.3%, P=0.001), and anticoagulant use (15% vs. 8.6%, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, the only significant risk factor was previous radiotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 2.05; P<0.05). Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed 2 factors associated with earlier explantation: transcorporal cuff implantation (hazard ratio [HR], 2.67; P=0.01) and the annual caseload of the center (HR, 1.08; P=0.02). When specifically examining explantation due to erosion, radiotherapy was the sole factor significantly associated with the risk of erosion (OR, 2.47; P<0.05) as well as earlier erosion (HR, 1.90; P=0.039). CONCLUSION: In this series, conducted in a real-world setting across multiple centers with different volumes and levels of expertise, the median survival without AUS explantation was 83 months. This study confirms that radiotherapy represents the primary independent risk factor for AUS erosion in male nonneurological patients.

Comparing the lifespan of virgin artificial urinary sphincters in radiated patients: transcorporal vs. standard placement.

PURPOSE: To compare the lifespan of first transcorporal cuff (TC) placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus standard placement (SP) in patients with prior radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: We reviewed first (virgin) AUS placements from two high-volume care centers between 1/2011 and 1/2021, including PCa patients with RT history. AUS lifespan was assessed via the hazard ratio of device explantation and/or revision within a ten-year timeframe for the TC vs. SP approaches. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and t-tests compared clinicodemographic variables. Kaplan-Meier curve compared TC and SP lifespan. RESULTS: 85/314 men with AUS met inclusion criteria, with 38.8% (33/85) in the TC group and 61.2% (52/85) in the SP group. Median ages were 69.8 (IQR = 65.2-73.6) and 67.1 (61.6-72.9), respectively, p = 0.17. Over a median follow up of 51.9 (15.8-86.1) and 80.4 (28.1-128.3) months for the TC and SP, overall, 12 (36.4%) TC devices were removed (four [12.1%] due to mechanical failures; eight [24.2%] erosions, and two [6.1%] infections) vs. 29 (55.8%) in the SP group (14 [26.9%] mechanical failures; 11 [21.1%] erosions, and five [9.6%] infections). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two approaches, with HR = 0.717, 95% CI 0.37-1.44, p = 0.35. The calculated device survival probabilities for the TC vs. SP at one, five, and 10 years were 78.8% vs. 76.9%, 69.3% vs. 58.7%, and 62.1% vs. 46.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TC cuff insertion for the first AUS implantation in pre-radiated patients showed to be comparable to SP when it comes to device survival, with comparable complication rates. Current guidance for approach selection is primarily based on patient selection and surgeon preference.

In silico assessment of the reliability and performance of artificial sphincter for urinary incontinence.

BACKGROUND: The standard artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is an implantable device for the treatment of urinary incontinence by applying a pressure loading around the urethra through an inflatable cuff, often inducing no-physiological stimulation up to tissue degenerative phenomena. A novel in silico approach is proposed to fill the gap of the traditional procedures by providing tools to quantitatively assess AUS reliability and performance based on AUS-urethra interaction. METHODS: The approach requires the development of 3D numerical models of AUS and urethra, and experimental investigations to define their mechanical behaviors. Computational analyses are performed to simulate the urethral lumen occlusion by AUS inflation under different pressures, and the lumen opening by applying an intraluminal pressure progressively increased under the AUS action (Abaqus Explicit solver). The AUS reliability is evaluated in terms of tissue stimulation by the mechanical fields potentially responsible for vasoconstriction and tissue damage, while the performance by the intraluminal pressure that causes the lumen opening for a specific occlusive pressure, showing the maximum urethral pressure for which continence is guaranteed. RESULTS: The present study implemented the procedure considering the gold standard AMS 800 and a novel patented AUS. Results provided the comparison between two sphincteric devices and the evaluation of the influence of different building materials and geometrical features on the AUS functionality. CONCLUSIONS: The approach was developed for the AUS, but it could be adapted also to artificial sphincters for the treatment of other anatomical dysfunctions, widening the analyzable device configurations and reducing experimental and ethical efforts.

Patient Perception of Physician Reimbursement by Medicare for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement.

INTRODUCTION: Patient perceptions of physician reimbursement commonly differ from actual reimbursement. This study aims to improve health care cost transparency and trust between patients, physicians, and the health care system by evaluating patient perceptions of Medicare reimbursement for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent AUS placement at a single institution from 2014 to 2023. After obtaining informed consent, we administered a telephone survey to ask patients about their perceptions of Medicare reimbursement for AUS surgery and the amount they felt the physician should be compensated. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled and completed the survey. On average, patients estimated Medicare physician reimbursement to be $18,920, 25 times the actual average procedure reimbursement. Once informed that the actual amount was $757.52, 97% of respondents felt that the reimbursement was "somewhat lower" (13%) or "much lower" (84%) than what they considered fair. The average amount that patients felt the physician should be paid was $8,844, 12 times the actual average procedure reimbursement. Fifty-four percent of patients estimated their physician's reimbursement to be higher than what they later reported as being "fair," representing a presurvey belief that their physician was overpaid. CONCLUSIONS: Patient perceptions of physician reimbursement for AUS are vastly different than the actual amount paid. The discordance between patient perception and actual reimbursement could impact how patients view health care costs and the relationship with their provider.

Radiologic feature of complications after artificial urinary sphincter implantation following total prostatectomy.

Incontinence following total prostatectomy for prostate cancer significantly impairs patient's quality of life. In severe cases, implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has shown favorable outcomes, enhancing continence by constricting the bulbous urethra. The AUS system consists of a pressure-maintaining balloon, control pump serving as the operational switch, cuff that constricts the urethra, and tubes and connectors that link these components, maintaining a continuous circuit through an internal pressure medium. Most instances of AUS dysfunction are attributed to circuit leaks leading to a reduction in internal pressure, which is identifiable on imaging by fluid accumulation around the circuit, balloon collapse, control pump deformation, and air within the circuit. When the AUS circuit is uncompromised, dysfunction may arise from issues such as the inability to compress the pump due to pain or displacement outside the scrotum or urinary tract obstruction caused by bladder hemorrhage/hematoma. Imaging plays a pivotal role in the evaluation of urinary tract injuries, hematomas/seromas, and infections associated with AUS placement or replacement. Understanding the function of AUS and its appearance on CT imaging is essential for accurately assessing AUS dysfunction and post-implantation complications, guiding clinical decision-making and improving patient care outcomes.

Artificial urinary sphincter erosion and infection: a contemporary review of perioperative considerations and management.

Surgical treatment options have long been a part of the treatment armamentarium in the field of male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and will continue to play an important role moving forward given the dramatic improvement they can have on a patient's quality of life and urinary tract function and control. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is widely considered the gold standard treatment option for male SUI given its breadth of effectiveness in mild, moderate, and severe cases of SUI. As with any surgery, there are potential perioperative risks and complications that all patients must be aware of when weighing the pros and cons of different treatment options. Two of the most dreaded complications of AUS surgery are urethral cuff erosion and device infection, both necessitating a subsequent surgery for device explant. The goal of this clinical practice review article is to examine and discuss the perioperative factors and management of these complications. Effectively treating these complications is of utmost importance, not just to address the acute clinical problem for patient health and safety, but also to provide the patient with the best chance of pursuing AUS replacement surgery in the future, given that the vast majority of these patients will develop recurrent bothersome SUI after the eroded and/or infected device is removed. By reviewing pertinent patient factors, preoperative and postoperative considerations, device-specific characteristics, surgical techniques, and patient counseling, this article serves as a thorough and practical clinical review guide for practicing urologists who perform male incontinence surgery.

Complicated artificial urinary sphincter insertion using the transcorporal cuff: keys to the tunical flap technique.

Urethral sphincter insufficiency following radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common cause of non-neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) insertion remains the standard of care for fit patients with SUI refractory to non-operative interventions. The proximal urethra is a common location for uncomplicated AUS placement. However, previous failed AUS, urethroplasty, or pelvic radiotherapy (RT) may compromise urethral tissue requiring technique modifications that optimise outcomes. In these situations, transcorporal cuff (TC) placement has been well described to facilitate continence restoration in men where there is no other feasible option other than urinary diversion or permanent incontinence. In the traditional TC approach, the procedure may be complicated by haematoma due to difficulty in completely closing the corporal defects behind the urethra. This narrated video demonstrates the tunical flap (TF) modification for transcorporal AUS implantation via a perineal and penoscrotal approach in patients with prior failed AUS placements secondary to urethral erosion. The TF technique for transcorporal AUS insertion provides circumferential reinforcement with tunica albuginea from the corpora cavernosa. Here, we show how this technique provides additional urethral support for compromised urethral tissue to help prevent cuff erosion. The TF preserves the corporal volume and does not limit candidacy for future penile prosthesis implantation. In our early results, there have been no postoperative haematoma formation with this technique.

Prevalence of Cognitive and Manual Dexterity Disorders Among Men Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement.

PURPOSE: Cognitive ability and manual dexterity sufficient to operate an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) are critical for device function and safety. We aimed to define the incidence of cognitive and/or dexterity disorders among men after AUS. We secondarily aimed to assess for association between these disorders and postimplant complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare linked database (2000-2018). We included men ≥ 66 years diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2001 to 2015 who subsequently underwent AUS placement. We excluded patients with < 1-year continuous fee-for-service Medicare enrollment or cognitive and/or manual dexterity disorder diagnoses prior to AUS implant. Subsequent cognitive/dexterity disorders and implant-related complications were queried using appropriate ICD (International Classification of Diseases)-9/10 and/or CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes. Associations between cognitive/dexterity disorders and postimplant complications were assessed using extended Cox proportional hazards modeling. Secondary analysis focused on serious complications (device revision/removal, Fournier's gangrene, urethral erosion). RESULTS: We identified 1560 men who underwent AUS who met inclusion criteria. Median age was 73.0 (IQR 70-77) years. Cumulative incidence function analysis estimated 44% and 17% incidence of cognitive and manual dexterity disorder, respectively, at 15 years post-AUS. Presence of cognitive with/without manual dexterity disorder was associated with increased hazard of any, but not serious, complication during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of patients develop cognitive and/or manual dexterity disorders following AUS. These data support the need for close longitudinal monitoring after implant.

Inguinal hernia repair in patients with artificial urinary sphincter after radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Stress urinary incontinence (UI) often develops after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, and in those patients with moderate-to-severe stress UI an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is implanted. Inguinal hernias (IHs) often occur after radical prostatectomy. As the prevalence of AUS implantation increases, it is possible to encounter patients with IHs undergoing AUS implantation (IHA). This study investigated our treatment and discussed an appropriate approach for IHAs. METHODS: We retrospectively investigated patients who underwent IH repair with AUS implantation at our hospital from January 2018 to March 2023. We classified IHAs into Types A-D based on the positions of the IHs and AUS devices (the positions of the control pump, pressure-regulating balloon, and connecting tube). The hernia and control pump were ipsilateral in Types A and B, whereas the hernia and pressure-regulating balloon were ipsilateral in Types A and C. RESULTS: This study included 12 IHs of 11 patients. The median patient age was 77 years. We conducted open repair in nine patients with all types and laparoscopic repair in two patients with Type B. The median operation times for unilateral and bilateral repairs were 96 and 182 min, respectively. There were no complications with AUS or hernia surgeries. CONCLUSION: IHA has its own characteristics, and multidisciplinary knowledge thereof will help surgeons safely perform IH surgery.

Artificial Urinary Sphincter Complications: A Narrative Review.

Stress urinary incontinence is a financially burdensome and socially isolating problem and can be experienced by men as a result of radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or other urologic surgery. Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement for stress urinary incontinence is considered the 'gold standard' for male stress urinary incontinence. While initially only placed by specialized prosthetic surgeons, changes in urologic training have made implantation of the device by general urologists more widespread. Additionally, even though a minority of urologists place the majority of implants, many urologists may find themselves caring for patients with these devices even if they have never placed them themselves. For this reason, it is paramount that the urologic surgeon implanting the device and those caring for patients with prostheses are familiar with the various perioperative and postoperative complications of AUS implantation. This review discusses the most commonly reported complications of AUS implantation as well as those that are rarely described. Knowledge of these potential complications is necessary in order to care for patients with urologic implants.

Current status of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMSTM) for male stress urinary incontinence.

Male stress urinary incontinence is a debilitating condition, which can occur after prostate surgery. In persistent cases, surgery is indicated and a number of options are available. This includes one of the male slings, Adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMSTM, A.M.I, Austria). There are now an increasing number of studies published. This review provides an overview of the current status of this implant device including technical considerations, surgical outcomes and potential advantages and disadvantages compared to alternatives such as the artificial urinary sphincter.

Preliminary results of the external urinary sphincter Uroflex® on the quality of life of patients with male urinary incontinence after prostate surgery: tolerance, severity of incontinence, and quality of life.

PURPOSE: This study aims to establish the ability of the Uroflex® external artificial sphincter to reduce the severity of male urinary incontinence and improve the quality of life of patients with male urinary incontinence. METHODS: A pre-post pilot study was carried out on a sample of 30 patients with male urinary incontinence. Tolerability and satisfaction were assessed by comparing the results of the Pad test, and EQ-5D and KHQ questionnaires before and after 3 months of using Uroflex®. RESULTS: At 3 months, 76.6% of patients continued using Uroflex®. The median score for overall satisfaction with the device was 8 out of 10. Pad test showed a significant reduction in the severity of male urinary incontinence at 3 months (p < 0.001), with resolution of all symptoms in 31% of patients. The KHQ showed a significant improvement in global quality of life (p = 0.003). This was also significant for five of the nine specific dimensions assessed. There was also an improvement in self-rated health using the EQ-5D questionnaire, although not significant (p = 0.075). CONCLUSION: The Uroflex® external urinary sphincter seems to improve the severity of urinary incontinence and quality of life of patients with male urinary incontinence after prostate surgery. These encouraging results will need to be confirmed in larger controlled studies.

Management of the anatomically complex penile implant candidate through an infrapubic incision: a review of surgical techniques and benefits.

This article provides a comprehensive discussion of 3-piece inflatable penile implant surgery when performed through an infrapubic approach in patients presenting with challenging anatomy or corporal fibrosis. The infrapubic approach is one of the primary approaches for inflatable device placement with excellent long-term functional outcomes. While the literature is rich in descriptions of infrapubic placement in the primary, uncomplicated setting, its role in the management of complex patients presenting to centers of excellence is less elucidated. In uncomplicated cases, the infrapubic approach offers several theoretical advantages including shorter operative time and quicker return to sexual function. In addition to describing specific details of our infrapubic technique and perioperative management, I discuss scenarios in which an infrapubic approach may allow for better exposure for correction of dorsal deformity, facilitate secondary surgical maneuvers such as suprapubic lipectomy, or protect existing incontinence prosthetics already in place. Specific technique and surgical pearls from our prosthetic center of excellence are reviewed for each of these challenging scenarios. Ultimately, prosthetic surgeons should be adept at placing, revising, and removing devices through both approaches so that various forms of anatomical deformity and device failures can be addressed proficiently. In addition to my own clinical reflections, a critical review was performed using the Medline database to support our statements.

Neurological sphincter deficiency: is there a place for artificial urinary sphincter?

PURPOSE: Neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (N-SUI) is a condition with serious impact on the quality of life. There are several treatment modalities of which the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) stands out as the most suitable technique for addressing sphincter insufficiency. In this article, the purpose is to describe practical considerations, outcomes, and complications of the artificial urinary sphincter in neurological sphincter deficiency in both males and females. METHODS: A narrative review of the current literature. RESULTS: The outcomes of AUS are reasonably good in patients with NLUTD, the surgical technique is discussed as well as the limitations and special considerations in this complex and heterogeneous patient population. CONCLUSION: The available evidence suggests that its efficacy and functional durability may be lower in patients with neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD) compared to those without neurological deficits. However, studies have shown that AUS can still provide effective and safe continence outcomes in both male and female patients, with long-term device survival rates ranging from several years to over a decade.

Primary implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter using the perineal and penoscrotal approaches: Functional results and assessment of reoperative procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the standard treatment for severe stress urinary incontinence in men. While the perineal access is considered the gold standard, some authors have proposed penoscrotal AUS in order to facilitate the procedure. The main objective of our study was to evaluate the duration of survival without revision surgery (SSRC) according to the surgical approach for primary implantation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 1179 patients implanted in France between 1991 and 2020 with an AMS 800 AUS were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 762 men were implanted perineally (VP) and 417 penoscrotally (VPS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 20 vs. 25months respectively. The groups were equivalent overall, apart from the use of anticoagulants (11% VP vs. 6.3% VPS P=0.014). In our population, 54% patients were considered as "dry" in the case of VPS vs. 42% for VP. There was no significant difference in terms of survival time without reoperation, revision, replacement or explantation. In univariate and multivariate analysis, age over 70years was predictive of more reinterventions, whereas the use of a 4.5cm cuff was protective, with hazard ratios of 1.42 (P=0.001) and 0.78 (P=0.04), respectively. CONCLUSION: The penoscrotal approach does not appear to be associated with more complications, has good functional results and no significant difference in reoperation-free survival. A prospective multicenter non-inferiority study could be of interest to confirm our findings.

A Full Bladder Is Not Needed for the Male Stress Incontinence Grading Scale.

INTRODUCTION: Our objectives were to evaluate the Male Stress Incontinence Grading Scale to stratify male patients with stress urinary incontinence for either artificial urinary sphincter or sling using a standing cough test and determine if an emptier bladder at the time of assessment carries increased risk of treatment failure. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of male patients undergoing sling and artificial urinary sphincter placement. The standing cough test score and bladder scan results were documented at initial evaluation. RESULTS: Forty patients underwent sling and 43 underwent naïve artificial sphincter placement. Median follow-up was 7.11 months. Thirty-six/forty slings had complete incontinence resolution or reduction to a safety pad vs 40/43 after sphincter (90% vs 93%, P = .62). Four sling patients (10%) had persistence or recurrence of incontinence. Cough test scores were similar between sling failure (67% grade 0, 33% grade 1) and success groups (83% grade 0, 3% grade 1, 14% grade 2). Bladder scan mean was 18.5 cc in the sling failure (SD 21.1) and 38.0 cc in the success groups (38.3), with 32% of success patients having bladder scans of 0 cc, and 63% of < 50 cc. Mean for sphincter patients was 45 cc (56.9). Ten patients with scan = 0 and 7 patients with scans < 30 cc demonstrated grade 4 incontinence. CONCLUSIONS: Cough test is a noninvasive, reliable tool to assess stress urinary incontinence severity. Our data suggest it is reliable even when bladders are nearly empty and can effectively stratify patients for sling vs artificial urinary sphincter with a high rate of success.

Prior male sling does not affect outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement in patients with post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) with or without a prior male sling. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent AUS for PPUI from 2007 to 2022. The primary endpoint was to determine the proportion of patients who achieved social continence, defined as self-reported use of 0-1 pad/day. The secondary endpoints were device failure rates and device failure-free survival. RESULTS: The analysis included 210 patients, with 30 (14.3%) having had prior slings and 180 (85.7%) without prior slings. After AUS insertion, 80.0% of patients with prior slings and 76.7% of those without prior slings achieved continence (0-1 pad/day). There were six (20.0%) and 53 (29.4%) device failures in patients with and without prior slings, respectively. The median device failure-free survival was not reached in patients with prior slings and was 8.9 years in patients without prior slings (P = 0.048). Limitations include retrospective nature and small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of AUS in patients with prior slings are similar to those without. Prior sling is associated with a longer device failure-free survival. AUS remains a viable option in patients who have persistent PPI after prior slings.

A robot-assisted laparoscopic revision of an artificial urinary sphincter in a patient with spinal cord injury.

This step-by-step article demonstrates our approach to robot-assisted laparoscopic revision of a bladder neck sited artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) for a spinal cord injured patient. The bladder neck location of an AUS in the spinal cord injured demographic is ideal to minimise urethral complications and urinary tract infections, whilst the transabdominal approach reduces the risk of wound breakdown that can occur via the typical perineal incision for AUS insertion. The accompanying video will guide viewers as to our minimally invasive technique for cuff revision in the event of secondary surgery for recurrent urinary incontinence.

Robot-assisted Periprostatic Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation in Men with Neurogenic Stress Urinary Incontinence: Description of the Surgical Technique and Comparison of Long-term Functional Outcomes with the Open Approach.

BACKGROUND: Periprostatic artificial urinary sphincter implantation (pAUSi) is a rare yet relevant indication for male neurogenic stress urinary incontinence (SUI). OBJECTIVE: To describe the surgical technique of robot-assisted pAUSi (RApAUSi) and compare the long-term functional results with the open pAUSi (OpAUSi). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data of 65 consecutive men with neurogenic SUI undergoing pAUSi between 2000 and 2022 in a tertiary centre were collected retrospectively. SURGICAL PROCEDURE: Thirty-three patients underwent OpAUSi and 32 underwent RApAUSi. OpAUSi cases were performed by a single surgeon, experienced in functional urology and prosthetic surgery. RApAUSi cases were performed by the same surgeon together with a second surgeon, experienced in robotic surgery. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures were achievement of complete urinary continence, intra- and postoperative complications, and surgical revision-free survival (SRFS). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: RApAUSi showed superior results to OpAUSi in terms of median (interquartile range) operative time (RApAUSi: 170 [150-210] min vs OpAUSi: 245 [228-300] min; p < 0.001), estimated blood loss (RApAUSi: 20 [0-50] ml vs OpAUSi: 500 [350-700] ml; p < 0.001), and median length of hospital stay (LOS; RApAUSi: 5 [4-6] d vs OpAUSi: 11 [10-14] d; p < 0.001). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3a complications occurred more frequently after OpAUSi (RApAUSi: 1/32 [3%] vs OpAUSi: 10/33 [30%]; p = 0.014). Achievement of complete urinary continence (zero pads) was comparable between the groups (RApAUSi: 24/32 [75%] vs OpAUSi: 24/33 [73%]; p = 0.500). The median follow-up periods were 118 (50-183) and 56 (25-84) mo for OpAUSi and RApAUSi, respectively (p < 0.001). A tendency towards longer SRFS was observed in the RApAUSi group (p = 0.076). The main study limitation was its retrospective nature. CONCLUSIONS: RApAUSi is an efficient alternative to OpAUSi, resulting in shorter operative times, less blood loss, fewer severe complications, and a shorter LOS with similar functional results and need for revision surgery. PATIENT SUMMARY: Compared with open periprostatic artificial urinary sphincter implantation (pAUSi), robot-assisted pAUSi leads to faster recovery and similar functional results, with fewer postoperative complications.