Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35535753›Full record

ReviewNeurourology and urodynamics2022

Pressure transmission theory-The Rasputin of incontinence.

Pep Petros

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurourology and urodynamics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pep PetrosUniversity of Western Australia School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9611-3258
The University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhorning's pressure transmission theory (PTT), though mortally wounded by multiple invalidations from the 1990 Integral Theory of female urinary incontinence (IT), like Rasputin, continues to survive as a theory for continence and incontinence.

aimTo examine the questions: How has the PTT survived? What is its contribution to knowledge?

methodsEleven different invalidations are presented based on images, pressure readings, clinical examples, experiments by the author, and others, for example, flow mechanics, finite element models, and surgical operations.

resultsEach of the 11 invalidations prima facie invalidate the PTTs of enhorning and others.

conclusions"How has the PTT survived?" Having provided a plausible explanation for all abdominal stress urinary incontinence operations since 100 years, PTT, unsurprisingly, like climate change today, had become an entrenched convention which abdicated the need for midurethral sling (MUS) surgeons to learn the very different functional surgical anatomy underlying the MUS. "Has the PTT progressed knowledge, or retarded it?" This lack of knowledge by the surgeons of how and why the MUS works could be held responsible for the large number of major complications reported by the TVT: including, transected urethras, obturator nerve damage, perforation of external iliac vessels, more than 20 deaths. The role of the sling is to strengthen the pubourethral neoligament to prevent the urethra opening out under stress, not to elevate it. Elevating the sling remains the major cause of the most frequent complication of the MUS today, postoperative urinary retention.

Indexed as

PressureUrethraUrinary IncontinenceFemaleHumansSuburethral SlingsUrinary Incontinence, StressUrologic Surgical ProceduresIntegral Theorymidurethral slingPressure Transmission Theorypubourethral ligamentSUI pathogenesis

Identifiers

PMID35535753
PMCPMC9544251
OpenAlexW4229451484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.