Aims: The committee was charged with the responsibility of reviewing and evaluating all published data relating to surgical treatment of male urinary incontinence since the previous consultation in 2004.Methods: Articles from peer‐reviewed journals, abstracts from scientific meetings, and literature searches by hand and electronically formed the basis of this review. The articles were evaluated using Levels of Evidences adapted by the ICUD from the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine. The Recommendations for Care were based on the level of evidence and discussed among the committee members to reach consensus. The incontinence problems were classified according to their etiology, that is, either primarily sphincter or bladder related.Results: Specialist evaluation of the patient is primarily a clinical approach with history, frequency‐volume chart, physical examination, and post‐void residual urine. Other investigations such as radiographic imaging of the lower urinary tract, cystoscopy, and urodynamic studies can provide important information for the clinician. For stress incontinence of various etiologies the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has the longest record of satisfactory results. Consideration must be given to the need for revisions for mechanical breakdown, erosion/infection, and recurrent incontinence, as well as cost. Sling procedures are increasingly being reported to have good outcomes for mild to moderate incontinence. Injectable agents have not shown durable results but newer technologies such as volume‐adjustable balloons have shown favorable early results. Incontinence following cystectomy with neobladder and pelvic trauma has been treated most commonly with the AUS.Conclusions: Although the literature is replete with well‐done cohort studies, there is a need for prospective randomized clinical trials. Recommendations for trials include standardized workup and outcome measures and complete reporting of adverse events and long‐term results. Further research is also needed to elucidate the mechanism of post‐prostatectomy incontinence. Neurourol. Urodynam. 29: 179–190, 2010.