Andrew Peterson, MD, discusses advances in artificial urinary sphincter technology

In this video, Andrew C. Peterson, MD, discusses the impact of persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) on quality of life after pelvic cancer treatment and the limitations of the traditional artificial urinary sphincter that have driven interest in electronically controlled systems. Peterson is a professor of urologic surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina.

Persistent urinary incontinence can affect men who have undergone prostate cancer treatment with surgery, radiation therapy, or both, as well as patients with other pelvic cancers. Peterson highlights findings from the Artificial Urinary Sphincter Clinical Outcomes trial (NCT04088331), which evaluated patient-reported outcomes before and after artificial urinary sphincter placement.¹ The study demonstrated substantial improvements in quality-of-life measures following treatment of incontinence, underscoring the broader impact of urinary symptoms on cancer survivorship.

Although the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter remains an established surgical treatment for male stress urinary incontinence, Peterson notes that its design has changed relatively little since its first introduction. The device requires patients to manually operate a scrotal pump and offers limited ability to adjust the pressure applied to the urethra. An electronically controlled system is designed to address some of these limitations by incorporating a cuff and an abdominally implanted control can containing a pump, reservoir, battery, and sensing system. The system allows clinicians to adjust pressure settings noninvasively after implantation, potentially enabling more individualized management.

“The real exciting component about this is in the future. Imagine we'll be able to make different programs where this thing has different pressures for, say, tennis mode, walking mode, sleeping mode, or, believe it or not, being intimate and having intercourse mode,” Peterson explained, highlighting the potential for pressure settings to be tailored to different activities and circumstances.

REFERENCE

1. Kaufman MR, Wood HM, Terlecki R, et al. The Artificial Urinary Sphincter Clinical Outcomes Trial: Primary Results. J Urol. 2026;215(2):194-202. doi:10.1097/JU.0000000000004796