ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2008
[Neurogenic urinary incontinence. Value of surgical management].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Damage to the CNS, the cauda equina, and the pelvic nerval structures causes neurogenic bladder dysfunction with neurogenic urinary incontinence (NUI). The definitive diagnosis of NUI is made with urodynamic examination methods. The most frequent cause of NUI is neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO). The treatment concept must take into account the physical and emotional restrictions. The treatment of NUI due to NDO is a domain of conservative therapy, i.e., mostly antimuscarinics and intermittent catheterization (IC). In about 30%, there is a good chance for therapy failures. An advancement in therapy is the injection of BTX-A into the detrusor. The missing drug approval is a disadvantage.Operative treatments are considered if conservative and minimally invasive therapies are unsuccessful. Sacral deafferentation (SDAF) and sacral anterior root stimulator implantation (SARSI) are available as organ-preserving techniques only for paraplegics with NDO and reflex urinary incontinence and neuromodulation for the other forms of NDO provided that a successful percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) test has previously taken place. Augmentation cystoplasty is indicated if SDAF and neuromodulation cannot be used and the bladder wall is damaged irreversibly by fibrosis. Kidney function of at least 25% and acceptance of IC are prerequisites. Myectomy (autoaugmentation) has an indication similar to augmentation cystoplasty but there must not be any fibrosis. Bladder neck insufficiency (BNI) caused by paralysis or iatrogenically can be treated by the implantation of an alloplastic sphincter high at the bladder neck. A stable reservoir function is required. If not all methods are possible, the ileum conduit or the suprapubic bladder fistula can be the last resort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.