Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32125449›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2020

[Devastated bladder outlet-suprapubic catheter vs. reconstruction].

A Kocot

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

A KocotKlinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Julius Maximilians Universität Würzburg, Oberdürrbacher Str. 6, 97080, Würzburg, Deutschland. Kocot_A@ukw.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The combination of a severe urethral sphincter defect with simultaneous development of recurrent bladder outlet obstruction characterizes a "devastated bladder outlet", which often is not surgically reconstructable. Clinically, quality of life is considerably compromised in affected patients with a wide variance of symptoms, mostly complete incontinence, but also urinary retention. This condition is usually preceded by multiple endoscopic interventions or even open surgical procedures, occasionally also in combination with radiotherapy of the pelvic region as part of multimodal oncological therapy. Treatment of these cases is complex and limited to few promising procedures. A potential therapy should primarily include the decision about the possibility of preserving the urinary bladder. In individual cases, this can result in simple therapy options while at the same time maintaining an acceptable quality of life for those affected. If there is no possibility of a refunctionalization of the original bladder, supravesical urinary diversion is indicated as a last-resort therapy. This paper provides a review as well as the limits and possibilities of conservative and surgical treatment options for a devastated bladder outlet.

Indexed as

Constriction, PathologicCystostomyHumansMaleQuality of LifeUrethraUrethral StrictureUrinary Bladder Neck ObstructionUrinary IncontinenceUrinary RetentionBladder neck stenosisCystostomyUrethral strictureUrinary incontinenceVesicostomy

Identifiers

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.