Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32526063›Full record

ArticleNeurourology and urodynamics2020

Patients' satisfaction and safety of bulk injection therapy Urolastic for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: A cross-sectional study.

Fenne M Casteleijn, Claudia R Kowalik, Claudia Berends, Mija Blaganje, Mateja Lasić Pecev, Ellen van der Linden, Sandra E Zwolsman, Jan-Paul W R Roovers, Pieter Minnee

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Fenne M CasteleijnDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8220-9742
Claudia R KowalikDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0802-1116
Claudia BerendsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mija BlaganjeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Mateja Lasić PecevDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Ellen van der LindenDepartment of Urology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Sandra E ZwolsmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan-Paul W R RooversDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pieter MinneeDepartment of Urology, Langeland Hospital, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Neuroscience · NLLjubljana University Medical Centre · SILange Land Ziekenhuis · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsPrimary outcome was to evaluate patients' satisfaction after being treated with bulk injection therapy polydimethylsiloxane Urolastic (PDMS-U) for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Secondary outcomes were: subjective cure, objective cure, severity of SUI symptoms, complications, reintervention rate, and disease-specific quality of life. Furthermore, to determine if outcomes worsened during time-after-treatment (time-frames: 0-12, 13-24, and ≥25 months).

methodsIn a cross-sectional design, patients treated with PDMS-U were recruited for hospital revisit. The primary outcome, patients' satisfaction, was assessed by the surgical satisfaction questionnaire. Subjective cure, objective cure, and severity of symptoms were assessed by the patients global impression of improvement, standardized cough stress test, and Sandvik severity scale, respectively. Medical charts and face-to-face interviews were used to determine complications and reinterventions.

resultsAbout 110 patients participated, 87 revisited the hospital. Median follow-up was 25 months (interquartile range: 14;35 months). Patients' satisfaction rate was 51%. Subjective and objective cure were respectively 46% and 47%. Most prevalent complications were: urinary retention (22%), pain (15%), and dyspareunia (15%). Exposure and erosion occurred in 7% and 5%, respectively. Reintervention rate of reinjection and excision of bulk material was 6% and 18.0%, respectively. Objective cure significantly worsened during time-after-treatment (P = < .05).

conclusionsAbout half of the patients being treated with PDMS-U were satisfied and subjectively cured 2 years after treatment, although the majority still experienced symptoms of SUI. Most complications were mild and transient, however, in 18% excision of bulk material was indicated for severe or persistent complications such as pain, exposure, or erosion.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionQuality of LifeAgedCross-Sectional StudiesDimethylpolysiloxanesFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTitaniumTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, StressDimethylpolysiloxanesTitaniumurolastic

Identifiers

PMID32526063
PMCPMC7497040
OpenAlexW3034562280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.