1464-410X/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=3b023a287baccfcd7715cf1935101c4ef9feb906)
1464-410X/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=2aeadcb16d199baae496a2f637919008651befce)
Commissioned Review
You have free access to this content
Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device
Article first published online: 29 NOV 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11614.x
© 2012 THE AUTHORS. BJU INTERNATIONAL © 2012 BJU INTERNATIONAL
Issue
BJU International
Special Issue: BJU International Australia and New Zealand Supplement
Volume 110, Issue Supplement S4, pages 5–11, December 2012
Additional Information
How to Cite
Chung, E., Ranaweera, M. and Cartmill, R. (2012), Newer and novel artificial urinary sphincters (AUS): the development of alternatives to the current AUS device. BJU International, 110: 5–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11614.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 29 NOV 2012
- Article first published online: 29 NOV 2012
- Manuscript Accepted: 20 JUN 2012
- Abstract
- Article
- References
- Cited By
Keywords:
- artificial urinary sphincter (AUS);
- urinary incontinence;
- sphincter device;
- mechanism of action;
- innovative design
Abstract
Introduction
- The current artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), AMS 800™ (American Medical Systems, Minnesota, MN, USA) is considered the standard of care for the treatment of urinary incontinence (UI).
- While the long-term effectiveness, safety, and durability of the current model of the AMS 800 are well documented, it is not without its limitations and complications. Over the last few years, improvements in design and innovative research into AUS devices have increased the treatment arsenal in male UI.
Methods
- Articles from peer-reviewed journals, abstracts from scientific meetings and electronic literature searches formed the basis of this review.
Results
- Newer AUS models, e.g. FlowSecure™, Zephyr™, Pro-ACT™ and other novel experimental AUS devices, are designed to simulate a healthy human sphincter and address the limitation of the existing AMS 800 device.
Conclusions
- Newer and novel AUS models are innovative and showed promising outcomes in short- to intermediate-term follow-up.
- However, there exists the need for prospective randomised clinical trials and complete reporting of adverse and long-term results before these AUS models can replace the existing AMS 800 device.