Medical malpractice after artificial urinary sphincter implantation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the gold standard of urinary incontinence management for moderate and severe cases. However, risks such as erosion, infection, and mechanical failure are present when using these sphincters. Therefore, it is essential to explore this aspect of AUS in order to deliver more effective patient care. This analysis offers the first investigation into medical malpractice cases pertaining to AUS placement.

Methods

The LexisNexis+ and Westlaw databases were used to access all federal and state cases, jury verdicts, and settlements. The LexisNexis+ and Westlaw databases were queried for the term "artificial urinary sphincter" or "artificial urethral sphincter" between the years 1990 and 2024. Cases selected for patients suing a uro

SUBMITTER: Khawaja I 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC12683436 | biostudies-literature | 2025 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature