ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2019
Urethral pressure profilometry in artificial urinary sphincter implantation: A case report.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundArtificial urethral sphincter (AUS) implantation is currently the gold standard for treating moderate and severe urinary incontinence. Currently, cuffs are chosen based on the surgeon's experience, and adjusting cuff tightness is crucial. The T-DOC air-charged catheter has not been proven to be inferior to traditional catheters. We report how intraoperative urethral pressure profilometry is performed using a T-DOC air-charged catheter with ambulatory urodynamic equipment, to guide cuff selection and adjustment. CASE SUMMARY: A 67-year-old man presented to our hospital with complete urinary incontinence following transurethral prostatectomy, using five pads/d to maintain local dryness. Preoperatively, the maximum urethral pressure (MUP) and maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) were 52 cmH2O and 17 cmH2O, respectively. An AUS was implanted. Intraoperatively, in the inactivated state, the MUP and MUCP were 53 cmH2O and 50 cmH2O, respectively; in the activated state, they were 112 cmH2O and 109 cmH2O, respectively. The pump was activated 6 wk postoperatively. Re-measurement of the urethral pressure on the same day showed that in the inactivated state, MUP and MUCP were 89 cmH2O and 51 cmH2O, respectively, and in the activated state, 120 cmH2O and 92 cmH2O, respectively. One month after device activation, telephonic follow-up revealed that pad use had decreased from five pads/d to one pad/d, which met the standard for social continence (0-1 pad per day). There were no complications.
conclusionThe relationship between intraoperative urethral pressure and urinary continence post-surgery can provide data for standardizing AUS implantation and evaluating 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.