ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Is pre-operative urodynamic bladder function the true predictor of outcome of male sling for post prostatectomy incontinence?
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective study using questionnaires and urodynamic assessments to evaluate bladder function and continence changes after robotic assisted radical prostatectomy.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Management of Post-RALP SUI and ED - What are and What Should we be Doing?Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Outcome of post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence surgery in men with preoperative idiopathic detrusor overactivity.BJUI compass · 2024Review
- Factors Influencing Postoperative Overactive Bladder after Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System Implantation for Male Stress Incontinence following Prostatectomy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Guiding Clinical Decision Making for Surgical Incontinence Treatment After Prostatectomy: A Review of the Literature.Current urology reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate pre-operative urodynamic parameters in male sling patients to ascertain whether this might better predict surgical outcomes and facilitate patient selection.
methodsWe performed a retrospective, case notes and video-urodynamics, review of men who underwent AdVanceXP male sling in three London hospitals between 2012 and 2019. Urodynamics were performed in all centres, while retrograde leak point pressure (RLPP) was performed in one centre.
resultsSuccessful outcome was seen in 99/130 (76%) of men who required one pad or less per day. The dry rate was 51%. Pad usage was linked to worse surgical outcomes, mean 2.6 (range 1-6.5) for success vs 3.6 (range 1-10) although the ranges were wide (p = 0.002). 24 h pad weight also reached statistical significance (p = 0.05), with a mean of 181 g for success group versus 475 g for the non-successful group. The incidence of DO in the non-successful group was significantly higher than in successful group (55% versus 29%, p = 0.0009). Bladder capacity less than 250 ml was also associated with worse outcomes (p = 0.003). Reduced compliance was not correlated with outcomes (31% for success groups vs 45% for non-successful group, p = 0.15). Preoperative RLPP was performed in 60/130 patients but did not independently reach statistical significance (p = 0.25).
conclusionUrodynamic parameters related to bladder function-detrusor overactivity and reduced maximum cystometric capacity predict male sling outcomes and may help in patient selection for male sling (or sphincter) surgery; whereas urodynamic parameters of sphincter incompetency (RLPP) were not predictive. Further larger scale studies are required to confirm these findings.
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.