ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Transcorporal vs. bulbar artificial urinary sphincter implantation in male patients with fragile urethra.
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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revision of Failed Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Comprehensive Review.Current urology reports · 2025Review
- A case of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in a patient who underwent both urethroplasty and ileal neobladder construction.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Third Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Placement Following Two Failures in Males: A Real-World Multicenter Study.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2025Article
- The fate of the urethra after artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion: a review of 98 patients.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Skin preparation before artificial urinary sphincter surgery: is there a difference between protocols?Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- Risk Factors for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Explantation and Erosion in Male Nonneurological Patients.International neurourology journal · 2024Article
- Artificial urinary sphincter erosion and infection: a contemporary review of perioperative considerations and management.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Efficacy, Safety, and Reoperation-free Survival of Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Non-neurological Male Patients over 75 Years of Age.European urology open science · 2023Article
- Is the Standard Artificial Urinary Sphincter AMS 800 Still a Treatment Option for the Irradiated Male Patient Presenting with a Devastated Bladder Outlet?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Management of male stress urinary incontinence in high-risk patients: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Review
- The role of transcorporal cuff placement in high-risk and ultra-high-risk patients: are they actually helpful?World journal of urology · 2023Article
- ATOMS (Adjustable Trans-Obturator Male System) in Patients with Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence and Previously Treated Urethral Stricture or Bladder Neck Contracture.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Transcroporal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement With Closure of Corporal Bodies-A Long-Term Analysis of Functional Outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
26 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare transcorporal vs bulbar artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in men with fragile urethra and to investigate the risk factors of AUS explantation in this population.
methodsThe charts of all male patients who had an AUS implantation between 2004 and 2020 in 16 centers were reviewed retrospectively. The primary endpoint was device explantation-free survival. Only patients with a fragile urethra were included in the present analysis. Fragile urethra was defined as a urethra carrying a high risk of cuff erosion because of prior radiotherapy and/or history of AUS explantation and/or history of urethral stricture surgery. The patients were divided in two groups according to the implantation site: bulbar vs transcorporal.
results464 patients were included for analysis. 88 patients underwent a transcorporal AUS implantation and 376 underwent a bulbar AUS implantation. Explantation-free survival was similar in both groups (estimated 5-year explantation free survival rates 55.3% vs. 58.4%; p=0.98). In the subgroup of patients with a history of previous AUS explantation, transcorporal approach tended to bring longer explantation-free survival (2-year explantation-free survival: 61.9% vs. 58.2%; p=0.096). In multivariate analysis, the only risk factor of shorter explantation-free survival was the history of previous AUS explantation (HR=2.65; p=0.01).
conclusionsTranscorporal AUS implantation was not associated with longer explantation-free survival. History of previous AUS explantation was the only risk factor associated with shorter explantation-free survival and this subgroup of patients may be the only one to draw benefits of transcorporal AUS implantation.
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.