The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, it had numerous biases inherent to its retrospective design. The lack of a control group did not allow a proper assessment of the value of robotic female AUS implantation compared with the open or laparoscopic approaches or other therapeutic options (e.g., pubovaginal sling, bulking agents, etc.). The relatively small sample size (n = 49) was another drawback of the present series. Last, opening of the bladder dome performed in challenging cases introduced significant, although isolated, heterogeneity in the technique used, but was part of a “patient's first” policy and had certainly contributed to the safe development of this new surgical technique. Opening of the bladder dome was felt less and less necessary with increasing experience.