ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Real-life outcomes after artificial urinary sphincter explantation in women suffering from severe stress 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 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial urinary sphincter for neurogenic urinary incontinence: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeArtificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in female patients results in high satisfaction rates and high functional outcomes, but implantation can be challenging and explantation of the device is fairly common. The objective of this study was to review outcomes after AUS explantation in women.
methodsThis is a retrospective, monocentric study of all women who underwent open or laparoscopic AUS implantation between November 1994 and July 2019, and patients with AUS explantation were included. Management after AUS explantation using descriptive analysis was assessed.
resultsOver a span of 26 years, 111 women had an AUS implanted by a single surgeon. Of these surgeries, 35 explantations in 29 patients were later required: 20 initial AUSs, nine revised AUSs and six reimplanted AUS (rAUSs). The median time to explantation was 15.5 month (± 0.55). After explantation, 13 rAUSs in 10 patients were successful and two attempts failed. The median time between explantation and rAUS was 8 months (± 0.95). At the last follow-up, five patients still had their rAUS and six rAUSs had required explantation after a median time of 6.5 months (± 0.65). Surgery was still possible for 12 patients who did not have a rAUS: three cystectomies, one bladder neck closure with continent urinary diversion, and six mid-urethral slings or adjustable continence therapy balloon implantations. Among the 23 patients who did not need a cystectomy or a bladder neck closure with continent urinary diversion, four were completely dry (17.4%), 11 were improved (47.8%), and eight (34.8%) experienced unchanged incontinence with the post-explantation management. Limitations include retrospective design, heterogeneous management over time and a relatively small population of patients in our cohort.
conclusionReimplantation of an AUS after an explantation seems feasible after at least 6 months. However, the surgery will be more difficult and satisfaction is not guaranteed. Multicenter databases should be created to help surgeons and patients decide on appropriate management strategies after explantation of an AUS.
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.