Crossmark

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

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

Published Online: 2026-03-11

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

van Renterghem, Alexander https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5609-649X
Verbeke, Lien https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7919-0066
De Bruyn, Helene

Jamaer, Caroline

Baten, Evert

van Renterghem, Koenraad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5367-6651
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2026-03-11

Version of Record valid from 2026-03-11
More Information

Article History

Received: 22 December 2025

Revised: 21 January 2026

Accepted: 26 February 2026

First Online: 11 March 2026

Competing interests

: The authors declare no competing interests.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below