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.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Response to Comment on: The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: A retrospective cohort study

International Journal of Impotence Research (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

With great interest, we read the comments by Rubez et al. on our paper published in the International Journal of Impotence Research [1, 2]. Their comments are insightful and provide some interesting remarks to which we would like to comment.

Our manuscript, which presents the largest contemporary series of penoscrotal implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), aimed to demonstrate that the penoscrotal approach is safe, feasible, and effective in achieving dryness in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Although we acknowledge that the retrospective, single-surgeon design may introduce performance, selection, or detection bias, we consider the study’s external validity to be robust.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  1. Verbeke L, De Bruyn H, Jamaer C, Van Renterghem A, Baten E, Van Renterghem K. The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01178-4

  2. Rubez A, Albayrak AT, Fregonesi A. Comment on: The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01215-2

  3. Mahon J, Dornbier R, Wegrzyn G, Faraday MM, Sadeghi-Nejad H, Hakim L, et al. Infectious adverse events following the placement of a penile prosthesis: a systematic review. Sex. Med Rev. 2020;8:348–54.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Van Huele A, Van Renterghem K. Simultaneous implant of inflatable penile prosthesis and artificial urinary sphincter: a single high-volume center experience. Int J Impot Res. 2025;37:78–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Renterghem K, De Bruyn H, Yebes A, Calopedos R, Deho F, Torremade J, et al. Early complications after penile prosthesis surgery: findings from the PHOENIX multicenter registry. Int J Impot Res. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-025-01080-z

  6. Abou Chawareb E, Hammad MAM, Azad B, Gross MS, Payne B, Swerdloff D, et al. Perioperative antimicrobial strategies in inflatable penile prosthesis surgery: associations between antifungals, oral antibiotics, and intravenous antibiotic duration, and infection outcomes. J Urol. 2025;214:642–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. Dalimov Z, Ivan SJ, Barham DW, Hammad M, Miller J, Andrianne R, et al. Prior radiation therapy is associated with increased risk of intraoperative complications in patients undergoing primary inflatable penile prosthesis placement: results from a large multi-institutional collaborative. Urology. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2025.08.015

  9. Krughoff K, Dvergsten T, Foreman JR, Peterson AC. Urethral stricture formation after artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion is uncommon in the absence of pelvic radiation. J Urol. 2023;210:136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Simhan J, Morey AF, Singla N, Tausch TJ, Scott JF, Lemack GE, et al. 3.5 cm artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion occurs predominantly in irradiated patients. J Urol. 2015;193:593–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fuller TW, Ballon-Landa E, Gallo K, Smith TG 3rd, Ajay D, Westney OL, et al. Outcomes and risk factors of revision and replacement artificial urinary sphincter implantation in radiated and nonradiated cases. J Urol. 2020;204:110–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilson SK, Westney OL, Mulcahy JJ. Twenty years later: is the scrotal one-incision AUS of value?. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:243–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Martens F, Heesakkers J, Van der Aa F, Thiruchelvam N, Witjes W, Caris C, et al. SATURN: A European, Prospective, Multicentre Registry for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence Surgery. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2023;57:91–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maastricht University Medical Center+, Department of Urology, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Alexander van Renterghem

  2. University Hospital of Leuven, Department of Urology, Leuven, Belgium

    Lien Verbeke, Helene De Bruyn & Koenraad van Renterghem

  3. Jessa Hospital, Department of Urology, Hasselt, Belgium

    Caroline Jamaer & Koenraad van Renterghem

  4. Regionaal Ziekenhuis Heilig Hart, Department of Urology, Tienen, Belgium

    Evert Baten

  5. Algemeen Ziekenhuis Diest, Department of Urology, Diest, Belgium

    Evert Baten

Authors
  1. Alexander van Renterghem
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lien Verbeke
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helene De Bruyn
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caroline Jamaer
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Evert Baten
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Koenraad van Renterghem
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AvR wrote the manuscript. LV, HDB, CJ, EB, and KVR contributed by proofreading and critically revising the text for clarity and content. All authors approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander van Renterghem.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van Renterghem, A., Verbeke, L., De Bruyn, H. et al. Response to Comment on: The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: A retrospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-026-01248-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-026-01248-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links