ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2017
[Incontinence after radical prostatectomy : Male Sling or "best option" first?]
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Devastating course-good outcome! Excellent results thanks to artificial urinary sphincter implantation despite perineal urethrostomy-a case report].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- [The "right" patient for implant surgery in urology : Why patient selection, informed consent, and communication are so important for patient satisfaction].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is a rare complication of radical prostatectomy, and it may lead to severe limitations for the patient and loss of quality of life. Several different surgical options for the therapy of PPI are available and may be chosen depending on severity of incontinence, residual urethral sphincter function, and previous history of radiotherapy. Alternatives to artificial urinary sphincters which over the last few decades have represented the gold standard for treatment of PPI are fixed slings and adjustable devices. In cases of mild or moderate incontinence, male slings can be used. Adjustable devices can also be adopted in irradiated patient with good results. Artificial urinary sphincters represent the ideal option in case of severe incontinence. Absolute contraindications for the implant of this device are impaired dexterity and cognitive capacity of the patients that may make use of the pump difficult. One type of therapy for all patients does not exist and must be individually determined. It is influenced by the grade of incontinence, the anatomical conditions, and the patient's expectations. Thus, appropriate counselling is mandatory. A common opinion is that these devices are direct competitors in the treatment of PPI. In reality, these devices are completely different surgical methods that rely on different principles and therefore have different indications.
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.