# Next-generation Solutions: Are Patients Ready for Electronic Artificial Urinary Sphincters for Male Incontinence?

**Authors:** Marc Kidess, Troya Ivanova, Julian Hermans, Leo Stadelmeier, Marina Hoffmann, Nikolaos Pyrgidis, Julian Marcon, Michael Chaloupka, Ricarda M. Bauer, Christian G. Stief, Yannic Volz

PMC · DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2025.02.004 · European Urology Open Science · 2025-02-21

## TL;DR

Most patients are satisfied with their artificial urinary sphincters and show interest in electronic versions, especially younger tech-savvy individuals, though concerns about technical issues remain.

## Contribution

The study explores patient interest and concerns regarding electronic artificial urinary sphincters, highlighting generational and technological usage differences.

## Key findings

- 60.4% of patients expressed interest in an electronic artificial urinary sphincter (eAUS).
- Younger patients and daily technology users showed greater interest in eAUS.
- Concerns about system malfunction, connection loss, and battery issues were prevalent among respondents.

## Abstract

The majority of patients who responded to our survey are satisfied with their current artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). There was a high level of interest in an electronic AUS, especially among younger patients with an affinity for technology.

Urology is characterized by continuous innovation. The inception of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) marked a pivotal technological advance and further advances in digital treatment options for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are emerging. Our aim was to assess patient willingness to receive an electronic artificial urinary sphincter (eAUS) implant and identify associated concerns.

Patients who received a first AUS implant (AMS800 system) for post-RP SUI from March 2013 to December 2023 were included. An anonymous survey was used to collect data on demographics, current AUS satisfaction, daily technology use, interest in an eAUS, and concerns about potential eAUS technical malfunctions. Data were analyzed using SPSS, with significance set at p < 0.05.

Out of 345 patients, 208 (60.2%) completed the questionnaire. The majority were aged 71–80 yr (51.7%) and had a university education (37.7%). Satisfaction with their AUS was high: 79.8% of the respondents were satisfied, 88.9% were satisfied with its handling, and 89.4% would choose an AUS implant again. Notably, 60.4% showed interest in an eAUS, with younger respondents and those who use technology on a daily basis expressing greater interest. Preferred control methods included remote-based (78.4%) and smartphone-based (60.0%) options. Concerns about system malfunction (66.4%), connection loss (65.9%), and battery issues (60.0%) were prevalent.

There was significant patient interest in an eAUS in our survey, especially among younger individuals and those who use technology daily. Despite high satisfaction with current AUS devices, addressing potential technical malfunctions and patient concerns is crucial for broader acceptance of an eAUS. Patient concerns about technological malfunctions seem to outweigh worries about medical issues.

Urology is becoming more advanced with technologies like robotic surgery and electronic artificial urinary sphincters (eAUS). According to our survey, most patients are happy with their current sphincters and are open to eAUS, especially younger patients who are familiar with technology. However, patients are concerned about system malfunctions and connection loss. More research is needed to address technical issues and patient concerns.

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** Male Incontinence (MESH:D005832), SUI (MESH:D014550)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11891701/full.md

## Figures

2 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11891701/full.md

## References

31 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11891701/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC11891701