Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30341450›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2019

Comparison of adjustable male slings and artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of male urinary incontinence: a retrospective analysis of patient selection and postoperative continence status.

M Grabbert, T Hüsch, A Kretschmer, R Kirschner-Hermanns, R Anding, A Rose, A Friedl, A Obaje, A Heidenreich, B Brehmer and 16 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
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

26 authors at 17 institutions in 2 countries.

M GrabbertDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. markus.grabbert@uk-koeln.de.
T HüschDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
A KretschmerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Munich Grosshadern (LMU), Munich, Germany.
R Kirschner-HermannsDepartment of Neurourology, University Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
R AndingDepartment of Neurourology, University Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
A RoseDepartment of Urology, Helios Klinikum Duisburg, Duisburg, Germany.
A FriedlDepartment of Urology, Krankenhaus Der Barmherzigen Schwestern Wien, Vienna, Austria.
A ObajeDepartment of Urology, St. Bernward Krankenhaus Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany.
A HeidenreichDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
B BrehmerDepartment of Urology, Diankonie Klinikum Schwaebisch Hall, Schwaebisch Hall, Germany.
C M NaumannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital SH, Kiel, Germany.
F QueissertDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
H LoertzerDepartment of Urology, Westpfalzklinikum Kaiserslautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany.
J PfitzenmaierDepartment of Urology, Evangelische Klinikum Bethel Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany.
J Nyarangi-DixDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
M KuroschDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
R OlianasDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany.
R HombergDepartment of Urology, St. Barbara Hospital Hamm, Hamm, Germany.
R AbdunnurDepartment of Urology, Helios Klinikum Schwelm, Schwelm, Germany.
J SchweigerDepartment of Urology, Catholic Hospital Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany.
T HofmannDepartment of Urology, Diankonie Klinikum Schwaebisch Hall, Schwaebisch Hall, Germany.
C WotzkaDepartment of Urology, Diakonie Klinikum Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
T PottekDepartment of Urology, Vivantes Klinikum Am Urban, Berlin, Germany.
W HuebnerDepartment of Urology, Landesklinikum Korneuburg, Korneuburg, Austria.
A HaferkampDepartment of Urology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
R M BauerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Munich Grosshadern (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DELMU Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Cologne · DEUniversity of Bonn · DEBG Klinikum Duisburg · DEDiakonie-Klinikum Stuttgart · DEEvangelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld · DEHelios Hospital Schwerin · DEKlinikum Lüneburg · DELandesklinikum Korneuburg · ATSt. Bernward Krankenhaus · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DEUniversity Hospital Münster · DEUniversity Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEVivantes Klinikum · DEWestpfalz Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo analyze and compare preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative results in men with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) selected for an adjustable male sling system or an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in a large, contemporary, multi-institutional patient cohort.

methods658 male patients who underwent implantation between 2010 and 2012 in 13 participating institutions were included in this study (n = 176 adjustable male sling; n = 482 AUS). Preoperative patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes were analyzed. For statistical analysis, the independent T test and Mann-Whitney U test were used.

resultsPatients undergoing adjustable male sling implantation were less likely to have a neurological disease (4.5% vs. 8.9%, p = 0.021), a history of urethral stricture (21.6% vs. 33.8%, p = 0.024) or a radiation therapy (22.7% vs. 29.9%, p = 0.020) compared to patients that underwent AUS implantation. Mean pad usage per day (6.87 vs. 5.82; p < 0.00) and the ratio of patients with a prior incontinence surgery were higher in patients selected for an AUS implantation (36.7% vs. 22.7%; p < 0.001). At maximum follow-up, patients that underwent an AUS implantation had a significantly lower mean pad usage during daytime (p < 0.001) and nighttime (p = 0.018). Furthermore, the patients' perception of their continence status was better with a subjective complete dry rate of 57.3% vs. 22.0% (p < 0.001).

conclusionsPatients selected for an AUS implantation showed a more complex prior history and pathogenesis of urinary incontinence as well as a more severe grade of SUI. Postoperative results reflect a better continence status after AUS implantation, favoring the AUS despite the more complicated patient cohort.

Indexed as

Suburethral SlingsUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialAgedCohort StudiesHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SelectionRadiotherapyRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeUrethral StrictureUrinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical Procedures, MaleArtificial urinary sphincterCompressive adjustable slingsMale urinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID30341450
OpenAlexW2897139420

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.