Abstract
Thank you for the insightful feedback on our study evaluating exchange of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) pressure regulating balloon. We agree it would be beneficial to know more of the details regarding the nature of incontinence (recurrent vs persistent) and the etiologies of the prior AUS explants, which was not obtained in 64% of the cohort. Of note, however, there was no significant difference in erosion rates, perhaps the most morbid outcome, between those with a prior AUS implant/explant and those who underwent pressure regulating balloon exchange with a virgin AUS. Further, it is important to emphasize that this procedure is beneficial in a very select cohort, ideally the nonirradiated patient with pure stress incontinence lacking urethral atrophy. Despite the efficacy demonstrated by our study, there is certainly a need for multi-institutional, prospective studies evaluating this management option for post AUS incontinence.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
