Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Revision rates of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: how it stacks up against other implants placed in men

International Journal of Impotence Research (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

The AMS 800â„¢ Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS) (Boston Scientific, previously the American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) remains the gold standard for managing severe male stress urinary incontinence, nearly 50 years since its introduction [1,2,3]. Yet, despite its widespread usage, the device continues to suffer from remarkably high revision rates, significantly exceeding those of other common prosthetic implants placed in men, including penile prostheses [4], orthopedic joints [5], and cosmetic implants [6].

The AMS 800™ was introduced by Dr. F. Brantley Scott in 1973 and was designed to restore continence in men post-prostatectomy or with neurogenic sphincter insufficiency [1]. Its design, a urethral cuff, a pressure-regulating balloon, and a scrotal pump, remains largely unchanged since inception, aside from minor additions like the InhibiZone® antibiotic coating and a smaller 3.5 cm cuff [1, 3]. Both innovations have failed to significantly improve device performance or longevity, with ongoing high rates of erosion, infection, and mechanical failure [2, 3, 7, 8].

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Scott FB, Bradley WE, Timm GW. Treatment of urinary incontinence by implantable prosthetic sphincter. Urology. 1973;1:252–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Aa F, Drake MJ, Kasyan GR, Petrolekas A, Cornu JN, Young Academic Urologists Functional Urology G. The artificial urinary sphincter after a quarter of a century: a critical systematic review of its use in male non-neurogenic incontinence. Eur Urol. 2013;63:681–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Linder BJ, Rivera ME, Ziegelmann MJ, Elliott DS. Long-term outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter placement: an analysis of 1082 cases at mayo clinic. Urology. 2015;86:602–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilson SK, Delk JR, Salem EA, Cleves MA. Long-term survival of inflatable penile prostheses: single surgical group experience with 2384 first-time implants spanning two decades. J Sex Med. 2007;4:1074–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Atwater BL, Kirkik D, Wilson SK, Koca O, Purohit RS, Munoz Vera C, et al. Short-term revision rate of Rigicon Testi10(TM) testicular prosthesis in adolescents and adults: a retrospective chart review. Int J Impot Res. 2025;37:303–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lai HH, Hsu EI, Teh BS, Butler EB, Boone TB. 13 years of experience with artificial urinary sphincter implantation at Baylor College of Medicine. J Urol. 2007;177:1021–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Montague DK. Artificial urinary sphincter: long-term results and patient satisfaction. Adv Urol. 2012;2012:835290.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lenfant L, Taille Y, Chartier-Kastler E, Lukacs B, Seisen T, Roupret M, et al. Artificial urinary sphincter implants in men: a national health care data system-based study to assess reinterventions in France. J Urol. 2025;213:217–27.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Henry GD, Wilson SK. Updates in penile prosthetics. Curr Urol Rep. 2005;6:400–7.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ledford CK, Perry KI, Hanssen AD, Abdel MP. What are the contemporary etiologies for revision surgery and revision after primary, noncemented total hip arthroplasty? J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2019;27:933–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hasan S, Marang-van de Mheen PJ, Kaptein BL, Nelissen R, Pijls BG. RSA-tested TKA implants on average have lower mean 10-year revision rates than non-RSA-tested designs. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020;478:1232–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Elliott DS, Barrett DM, Gohma M, Boone TB. Does nocturnal deactivation of the artificial urinary sphincter lessen the risk of urethral atrophy? Urology. 2001;57:1051–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carson CC. Diagnosis, treatment and prevention of penile prosthesis infection. Int J Impot Res. 2003;15:S139–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Carson CC, Mulcahy JJ, Govier FE. Efficacy, safety and patient satisfaction outcomes of the AMS 700CX inflatable penile prosthesis: results of a long-term multicenter study. AMS 700CX Study Group. J Urol. 2000;164:376–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Oberlin DT, Matulewicz RS, Bachrach L, Hofer MD, Brannigan RE, Flury SC. National practice patterns of treatment of erectile dysfunction with penile prosthesis implantation. J Urol. 2015;193:2040–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee R, Te AE, Kaplan SA, Sandhu JS. Temporal trends in adoption of and indications for the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol. 2009;181:2622–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mulcahy JJ. Long-term experience with salvage of infected penile implants. J Urol. 2000;163:481–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institutes of Urologic Excellence La Quinta, La Quinta, CA, USA

    Steven K. Wilson

  2. Department of Urology, Indiana University Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA

    John J. Mulcahy

  3. Istanbul Kent University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Ahmet T. Albayrak

  4. Department of Urology, Lincoln Hospital, Bronx, NY, USA

    M. David Schwalb

Authors
  1. Steven K. Wilson
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Mulcahy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmet T. Albayrak
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. David Schwalb
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SKW: Contributed substantially to the conception and design of the study, drafting significant portions of the manuscript, and providing critical revisions for intellectual content. JJM: Participated in the conceptual framework of the article and critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. ATA: Performed a detailed literature review, drafted sections of the manuscript, and coordinated the final preparation and submission process. MDS: Provided critical review and editing of the manuscript, and contributed to the discussion of clinical implications.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet T. Albayrak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

SKW: Consultant for International Medical Devices, Rigicon, Uramix. JJM: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Coloplast Corporation. ATA: No conflict of interest. MDS: No conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, S.K., Mulcahy, J.J., Albayrak, A.T. et al. Revision rates of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: how it stacks up against other implants placed in men. Int J Impot Res (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01134-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01134-2

Search

Advanced search

Quick links