Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29560500›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019

[Individualized patient care with urological implants using biofilm-resistant surface concepts].

N Laube, F Bernsmann, C Fisang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

N LaubeKrankenhaus Maria Hilf, Abteilung für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Marienhaus Klinikum im Kreis Ahrweiler, Dahlienweg 3, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Deutschland. norbert.c.laube@gmail.com.
F Bernsmann, Rheinstraße 88, 53424, Remagen, Deutschland.
C FisangKrankenhaus Maria Hilf, Abteilung für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Marienhaus Klinikum im Kreis Ahrweiler, Dahlienweg 3, 53474, Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Deutschland.
Krankenhaus MaraRefonet · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urological implants in the urinary tract are routinely used to ensure urine flow. However, the morbidities are numerous concerning long-term derivations. Especially with the ureteral stents, failure can have considerable consequences. Since the surfaces of all urological implants are more or less ideal substrates for microorganisms, the formation of bacterial biofilms is a regularly observed and often serious complication, which in many cases forces early implant replacement. The burden on the patient and the health system are enormous. This article provides an overview of the numerous strategies developed or under development to protect against bacterial adhesion. Observations in use show "sometimes good, sometimes bad results" for all strategies, which may be due to the fact that the treated patients have different biological and clinical conditions. The implants are each equipped with defense mechanisms designed for certain "scenarios"; if they are used inadequately in this respect, they cannot optimally fulfill their task. Systematic observations of the "outcomes" and evaluation of the obtained data would be necessary in order to be able to assign an "optimal" effect spectrum to each defense strategy, thus, ultimately prospectively giving patients the most suitable product in advance. Systematic use of the existing implant concepts can avoid a large number of implant-related complications "ad hoc"; further development steps with regard to improved surface modifications can be made more specifically. However, the hope of a "super strategy" is likely to remain unfulfilled because bacteria as "opponents" have already proved billions of years of survival.

Indexed as

BiofilmsStentsUreterBacteriaHumansPatient CareBiofilm protectionIntolerancesUrinary catheterUrinary stentVariety of products

Identifiers

PMID29560500
OpenAlexW2792441959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.