ArticleWorld journal of urology2019
An overview of the ATOMS generations: port types, functionality and risk factors.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The male slings: an effective and safe alternative surgical treatment to the artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence?-a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Outcomes with the Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS) for the Treatment of Male Stress Urinary Incontinence After Prostate Surgery and the Impact of Previous Radiotherapy.European urology open science · 2024Article
- Update on Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System (ATOMS) for Male Incontinence after Prostate Cancer Surgery.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Complications of the urinary incontinence system ATOMS: description of risk factors and how to prevent these pitfalls.World journal of urology · 2020Article
- Patient satisfaction with adjustable transobturator male system in the Iberian multicenter study.World journal of urology · 2019Article
- [Differentiated surgical treatment of male stress urinary incontinence-between intention and reality?]Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Review
- Article
- Contemporary male slings for stress urinary incontinence: advances in device technology and refinements in surgical techniques.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe report the multicentre comparison of the different port types of the adjustable transobturator male incontinence system (ATOMS, A.M.I., Austria).
methodsBetween 10/09 and 10/16, 383 patients received an ATOMS. Of these, 63% received the inguinal port (IP, 2009-2013), 23% the intraoperative manually connectable scrotal port (SP, 2013-2015), and 14% the pre-connected fully silicone-covered scrotal port (SSP, 2014-2016). During the follow-up period, continence parameters, pain and quality of life ratings and postoperative port-associated complications were evaluated and compared. Statistical analysis was performed with GraphPad Prism 7
resultsRegarding preoperative parameters (BMI, ASA score, previous radiotherapy/incontinence surgery, and preoperative 24-h pad count/24-h pad test), no significant differences were found. Regarding perioperative parameters, the mean operative time was significantly shorter for the SP and SSP (IP vs. SP p < 0.0001, IP vs. SSP p = 0.0048, SP vs. SSP p = 0.697). Comparison of the postoperative 24-h pad count, 24-h pad test and uroflowmetry data revealed no significant differences. However, the postoperative ICIQ-SF score was significantly better for the SSP (p = 0.0232) than the SP. A significant difference was also observed in postoperative port-associated complications. According to the Clavien-Dindo classification, we identified one grade I and 29 grade IIIb complications for the IP, 1 grade I and 6 grade IIIb complications for the SP, but only 2 grade IIIb complications for the SSP (IP vs. SP p = 0.0231, IP vs. SSP p = 0.0189 and SP vs. SSP p = 0.0453).
conclusionThe SSP shows fewer complications while retaining comparable efficacy.
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.