ArticleTurkish journal of urology2021
Peri-operative outcomes between primary and replacement artificial urinary sphincter surgery: An ACS-NSQIP analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial urinary sphincter erosion and infection: a contemporary review of perioperative considerations and management.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Complications of stress urinary incontinence surgery in men: a comparative analysis of urethral sling versus artificial urinary sphincter from a large national database.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate differences in perioperative clinical outcomes in men undergoing artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in primary versus replacement settings. Secondarily, we aimed to identify patient-related factors contributing to complications associated with AUS placement. MATERIALS AND
methodsA review of the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed between 2010 and 2018 identifying males undergoing AUS implantation. Subjects were further subdivided into primary implantation or removal/replacement of AUS simultaneously via current procedural terminology codes 53445 and 53447, respectively. 30-Day postoperative outcomes were compared between cohorts using t-test and Fisher's exact test. The relationship between patient factors and complications was evaluated using logistic regression.
resultsA total of 1,892 patients were identified: 1,445 primary AUS placement and 447 AUS replacement procedures. Patients undergoing AUS replacement were statistically older than those undergoing primary implantation (71.4 vs 69.7 years, P < .001). AUS replacement procedures were associated with an increased rate of superficial surgical site infection (SSI) compared to primary procedures (1.3% vs 0.4%, P ¼ .042). There were no differences identified between cohorts for deep SSI, cardiopulmonary complications, reoperation, operative time, or length of stay. Logistic regression demonstrated that higher body mass index was found to be independent risk factors for any complications, and diabetes mellitus was associated with increased risk of AUS-related readmission.
conclusionWithin the perioperative period, patients undergoing replacement AUS have an increased risk of superficial SSI compared to primary AUS implantation. These findings can assist with appropriate perioperative counseling of patients undergoing primary and replacement AUS implantations.
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.