Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31797074›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2020

The impact of surgical sequence on outcome rates of artificial urinary sphincter implantation: comparative effectiveness of primary, secondary and repeat implantation.

Clemens M Rosenbaum, Tina Pham, Roland Dahlem, Valentin Maurer, Philip Marks, Malte W Vetterlein, Margit Fisch, Tim Ludwig

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Clemens M RosenbaumDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. rosenbaumclemens@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8574-0021
Tina PhamDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Roland DahlemDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Valentin MaurerDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Philip MarksDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Malte W VetterleinDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Margit FischDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Tim LudwigDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine whether salvage artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation after prior incontinence surgery achieves outcomes comparable to primary AUS implantation.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated data of patients undergoing AUS implantation from 2009 to 2014. Functional outcome was objectified by 1-h stress pad test, uroflowmetry, post-void residual urine measurement, clinical examination, and chart review. Complications were categorized according to Clavien-Dindo classification system. Kaplan-Meier analysis determined explantation-free survival.

resultsA total of 235 patients were included of whom 165 (70.2%) underwent primary AUS. In 70 patients, salvage incontinence surgery was performed, with 24 (10.2%) patients undergoing AUS reimplantation after prior AUS surgery (repeat AUS) and 46 (19.6%) patients undergoing AUS surgery after any other type of incontinence surgery (secondary AUS). There were no significant differences in rates of continence among primary AUS and repeat AUS patients. Patients undergoing secondary AUS had significantly better continence rates than primary and repeat AUS patients. Three-year explantation-free survival rates after AUS insertion were 82.3% (primary AUS), 78.6% (repeat AUS) and 81.5% (secondary AUS). There were no differences in complication rates among the groups.

conclusionAUS is a safe option in the treatment of severe incontinence even after prior AUS or any other prior incontinence surgery and can still achieve satisfactory outcomes as salvage treatment.

Indexed as

Urinary Sphincter, ArtificialAgedDiagnostic Techniques, UrologicalHumansMaleReoperationRetrospective StudiesSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical ProceduresAMS 800Artificial urinary sphincterReoperationStress urinary incontinenceSurgical sequence

Identifiers

PMID31797074
OpenAlexW2994289473

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.