Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Male Patients Requiring Urethral Instrumentation: Is It a Challenge?

BACKGROUND: Urethral instrumentation (UI) in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) requires technical assessments and carries a risk of urethral erosion, causing severe clinical and legal results. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to the members of the Society of Urological Surgery in Turkey between 15th November and 15th December 2025. The survey consists of 20 multiple-choice items addressing sociodemographic characteristics, urological sub-field interests, knowledge about AUS components and functionality, AUS training, experience with UI in AUS patients, practice patterns, and interest in further training. RESULTS: Of 286 participants (mean age 43.32 ± 9.03), 66.1% reported playing a role in urological emergencies, with 88.1% reporting insufficient training during their residency. Besides, 50.3% had occasional or regular involvement with AUS surgeries. Only 29.0% reported knowing AUS components and 39.2% reported feeling confident in deactivating it. From the aspect of urethral catheterization, 50.0% had knowledge of the safe catheter diameter, and 20.3% identified safe catheterization duration. Even though 33.2% self-reported competence in UI, many participants gave incorrect responses regarding catheter size and catheterization duration. Self reported-competence was found to have strong correlation with knowledge about AUS components (OR 0.049 [%95 CI: 0.021-0.117]), prior experience (OR 0.355 [95% CI: 0.151-0.834]). The main limitation of the study is the subjective responses from a limited number of participants. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed significant gaps regarding Turkish urologists' training and knowledge of UI in AUS patients. The findings emphasize the potential for a better training to enhance patient outcomes and minimize AUS-related complications in Turkey. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: It was not deemed necessary because it was a survey study.