ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2019
[Individualized patient care with urological implants using biofilm-resistant surface concepts].
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.
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, 0 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.