ReviewMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2016
Artificial urinary sphincters for male stress urinary incontinence: current perspectives.
Review in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the UK: are we following the guidelines?Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Artificial Urinary Sphincters: History, Current Utilization, and Future Innovations.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- In silico tools for mechanical analysis of extra- and intra-luminal artificial urinary sphincters.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Urologic prosthetics: an imaging review of short- and long-term complications.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Article
- Climacturia: what treatment options do we offer to those with and without concomitant erectile dysfunction?International journal of impotence research · 2023Review
- A narrative review on surgical treatment options for male stress urinary incontinence.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- Article
- [Künstliche Harnsphincter zur Behandlung von Stress-Harninkontinenz - eine oft nicht ausgelastete Behandlungsoption in Deutschland].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
- Survey of Microsurgery Training Availability in US Urology Residency Programs.The world journal of men's health · 2021Article
- Artificial Urinary Sphincter Complications: Risk Factors, Workup, and Clinical Approach.Current urology reports · 2021Review
- [Stress urinary incontinence in men].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Article
- Penoscrotal Incision for the Primary Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter.Current urology · 2020Review
- Urethral pressure profilometry in artificial urinary sphincter implantation: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Article
- Dorsolateral fibromuscular tissue preservation during artificial urinary sphincter cuff placement is associated with low infection and erosion rates.BJU international · 2019Article
- Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.F1000Research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), which has evolved over many years, has become a safe and reliable treatment for stress urinary incontinence and is currently the gold standard. After 4 decades of existence, there is substantial experience with the AUS. Today AUS is most commonly placed for postprostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. Only a small proportion of urologists routinely place AUS. In a survey in 2005, only 4% of urologists were considered high-volume AUS implanters, performing >20 per year. Globally, ~11,500 AUSs are placed annually. Over 400 articles have been published regarding the outcomes of AUS, with a wide variance in success rates ranging from 61% to 100%. Generally speaking, the AUS has good long-term outcomes, with social continence rates of ~79% and high patient satisfaction usually between 80% and 90%. Despite good outcomes, a substantial proportion of patients, generally ~25%, will require revision surgery, with the rate of revision increasing with time. Complications requiring revision include infection, urethral atrophy, erosion, and mechanical failure. Most infections are gram-positive skin flora. Urethral atrophy and erosion lie on a spectrum resulting from the same problem, constant urethral compression. However, these two complications are managed differently. Mechanical failure is usually a late complication occurring on average later than infection, atrophy, or erosions. Various techniques may be used during revisions, including cuff relocation, downsizing, transcorporal cuff placement, or tandem cuff placement. Patient satisfaction does not appear to be affected by the need for revision as long as continence is restored. Additionally, AUS following prior sling surgery has comparable outcomes to primary AUS placement. Several new inventions are on the horizon, although none have been approved for use in the US at this point.
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.