ReviewCurrent urology2020
Penoscrotal Incision for the Primary Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter.
Review in Current urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Inflatable penile prosthesis placement after prior transcorporal artificial urinary sphincter placement: A case report.Urology case reports · 2023Article
- Twenty years later: is the scrotal one-incision AUS of value?International journal of impotence research · 2022Review
- Erratum: Penoscrotal Incision for the Primary Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Erratum.Current urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has become the gold standard to treat severe stress urinary incontinence in men. The traditional placement of an AUS requires 2 incisions. The cuff is placed through a perineal incision and the reservoir and pump are placed via an inguinal incision. The implantation of an AUS is also possible via a single penoscrotal approach.
objectivesThe objective is to demonstrate that the penoscrotal approach is not inferior to the perineal approach.
methodsRetrospective review of a single surgeon database from 2014 to 2019 was performed. A total of 40 patients have undergone implantation of an AUS via a penoscrotal incision. The outcome of patients was followed for an average of 31.3 months for adverse outcomes.
resultsA primary American Medical Systems 800 sphincter was placed in 40 patients via a penoscrotal incision. The average age was 72 years. The average operating time was 35 minutes. The average cuff size was 4 cm. There were no infections of the prothesis so far. Three patients required a revision, 2 other patients needed an explant of the AUS, 1 patient underwent a cystectomy because of persistent radiocystitis. After activation of the sphincter, 33 patients (82.5%) were completely dry or using 1 pad per day for accidents. The remainder were all improved.
conclusionsAUS implantation via a single penoscrotal approach is not inferior to the perineal approach and has several advantages. The operating time is shorter and the procedure requires only 1 incision which both reduce the risk of infections, while the continence results are similar for both approaches.
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.