ArticleMedicine2020
Feasibility of measuring urethral pressure during female midurethral slings: Case report.
Article in Medicine, 2020. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characterizing the structural properties and porosity of mid-urethral slings with varied manufacturing techniques.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleStress urinary incontinence (SUI) refers to the involuntary leakage of urine when abdominal pressure increases. Midurethral slings (MUS) have become the main surgical method for treating SUI, but no quantitative standard for the degree of sling tightness during operation exists. We achieved this quantitative measurement using ambulatory urodynamic equipment. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 49-year-old woman presented to our hospital with intermittent urine leakage. Five pads were used daily to keep the vulva dry. The preoperative urethral pressure profilometry (UPP) showed that maximum urethral pressure (MUP) was 54 cmH2O and maximum urethral closure pressure (MUCP) was 53 cmH2O. DIAGNOSIS: According to the medical history and examination findings, the patient was diagnosed as SUI.
interventionsThe MUS and UPP were performed. OUTCOMES: The intraoperative UPP showed that MUP was 29 cmH2O and MUCP was 17 cmH2O. Three months after the operation, the patient was followed up by telephone. The amount of urine pad usage decreased from 5 pads/d to 0 pads/d, reaching the social control standard (0-1 pads/d). The patient's international consultation on incontinence questionnaire short form score decreased from 18 to 5, and their incontinence quality of life score increased from 12.5 to 78.4. The effect of urine control was satisfactory, and no complications occurred.Five months after operation, the patient was reexamined in the outpatient department. The UPP showed that the MUP was 98 cmH2O and the MUCP was 72 cmH2O. The patient still uses 1 pad/day. The international consultation on incontinence questionnaire short form score is 6 and incontinence quality of life score is 79.5. The curative effect is stable. LESSONS: MUS has become an effective surgical method for SUI, and the tightness of the sling directly affects the surgical outcome. We have achieved the measurement of urethral pressure during MUS. However, although we found that there is no obvious clinical significance of urethral pressure measurement in MUS operation, future research will benefit from our findings by improving upon our study design to help standardize the clinical diagnosis and treatment of MUS.
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.