Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Robotic midurethral sling removal: surgical technique and outcomes of a single center series.

World journal of urology·2026
Same author

Fascial Mild Urethral Sling or Artificial Urinary Sphincter in the Neurological Women Population, a Multicenter Study.

Neurourology and urodynamics·2026
Same author

Prospective registry for patients undergoing artificial urinary sphincter surgery for female stress urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency: Study protocol.

The French journal of urology·2026
Same author

Life Cycle Assessment of HoLEP: Quantifying Environmental Impact and Opportunities for Sustainable Urologic Surgery.

European urology open science·2026
Same author

Transcriptomic profiling across stages of non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer identifies fibroblast activation protein-alpha as a stromal biomarker associated with progression.

Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.)·2026
Same author

Comparative 30-day life cycle assessment of bladder drainage strategies.

BJU international·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Nov 28, 2025

Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy
03:25

Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy

Published on: June 16, 2022

1.1K

Robot-assisted artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

Benoit Peyronnet1, Gary Gray2, Grégoire Capon3

  • 1Department of Urology, University of Rennes, Rennes, France.

Current Opinion in Urology
|November 26, 2020
PubMed
Summary

Robotic artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation shows promise for treating incontinence, especially in females. This minimally invasive approach offers lower complication rates compared to traditional open surgery, potentially becoming the new standard.

More Related Videos

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
12:10

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

8.5K
Cystometric and External Urethral Sphincter Measurements in Awake Rats with Implanted Catheter and Electrodes Allowing for Repeated Measurements
10:07

Cystometric and External Urethral Sphincter Measurements in Awake Rats with Implanted Catheter and Electrodes Allowing for Repeated Measurements

Published on: January 30, 2018

16.4K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Nov 28, 2025

Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy
03:25

Transcorporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement in a Case Requiring Revision for Urethral Atrophy

Published on: June 16, 2022

1.1K
Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
12:10

Retzius-Sparing Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

Published on: May 19, 2022

8.5K
Cystometric and External Urethral Sphincter Measurements in Awake Rats with Implanted Catheter and Electrodes Allowing for Repeated Measurements
10:07

Cystometric and External Urethral Sphincter Measurements in Awake Rats with Implanted Catheter and Electrodes Allowing for Repeated Measurements

Published on: January 30, 2018

16.4K

Area of Science:

  • Urology
  • Robotic Surgery
  • Medical Devices

Background:

  • Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation is a treatment for urinary incontinence.
  • Traditional open AUS implantation, particularly at the bladder neck, has limitations, including significant perioperative morbidity.
  • Robotic assistance has emerged to address technical challenges in AUS placement.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review the current status of robotic artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in both male and female patients.
  • To evaluate the outcomes and benefits of robotic AUS procedures.
  • To assess the potential of robotic AUS as a standard treatment for specific patient groups.

Main Methods:

  • Review of published series on robotic AUS implantation.
  • Comparison of outcomes between robotic and historical open AUS implantation cohorts.
  • Analysis of complication rates, including cuff erosion and device explantation.

Main Results:

  • Robotic AUS implantation has demonstrated promising outcomes in recent series.
  • Lower rates of cuff erosion and AUS explantation were reported with robotic AUS compared to open surgery.
  • The robotic approach may reduce perioperative morbidity, facilitating wider use in female patients.

Conclusions:

  • Robotic AUS implantation is a viable and potentially superior alternative to open surgery for certain patients.
  • This technique may become the standard for female AUS implantation due to improved safety and efficacy.
  • Further data is needed for robotic AUS in male patients, particularly for self-catheterizing neurological individuals.