Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35729329›Full record

ArticleProstate cancer and prostatic diseases2023

Contemporary trends in the surgical management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy in the United States.

Francesco Del Giudice, Jianlin Huang, Shufeng Li, Simon Sorensen, Ekene Enemchukwu, Martina Maggi, Stefano Salciccia, Matteo Ferro, Felice Crocetto, Savio Domenico Pandolfo and 11 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Editorial: new horizons in robotic platforms.Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

21 authors at 13 institutions in 6 countries.

Francesco Del Giudice *Department of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy. francesco.delgiudice@uniroma1.it.ORCID 0000-0003-3865-5988
Jianlin Huang *Department of Urology, Sichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, Chengdu, China.
Shufeng LiDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Simon SorensenDepartment of Urology, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ekene EnemchukwuDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Martina MaggiDepartment of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Stefano SalcicciaDepartment of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Matteo FerroDivision of Urology, European Institute of Oncology (IEO), IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Felice CrocettoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4315-7660
Savio Domenico PandolfoDepartment of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences and Odontostomatology, University of Naples "Federico II", Naples, Italy.
Riccardo AutorinoDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, VCU Health, Richmond, VA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7045-7725
Wojciech KrajewskiDepartment of Urology and Oncological Urology, Wrocław Medical University, Wrocław, Poland.
Simone CrivellaroUniversity of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, Chicago, IL, USA.
Giovanni E CacciamaniUSC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Eugenio BolognaDepartment of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1140-0590
Vincenzo AseroDepartment of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Carlo ScornajenghiDepartment of Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Marco MoschiniDepartment of Urology, San Raffaele Hospital, IRCCS Milan, Milan, Italy.
David D'AndreaDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1625-1077
David R BrownGeisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth, NH, USA.
Benjamin I ChungDepartment of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Policlinico Umberto I · ITStanford University · USChildren's Hospital of Richmond at VCU · USAarhus University · DKDartmouth College · USIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITMedical University of Vienna · ATSichuan Academy of Medical Sciences & Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital · CNUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITUniversity of Southern California · USVita-Salute San Raffaele University · ITWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo identify trends, costs, and predictors in the use of different surgical procedures for post-radical prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe identified 21,589 men who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer (PCa) and treated with radical prostatectomy (RP) from 2003 to 2017. The primary outcome was the incontinence procedure performances. Optum's de-identified Clinformatics

resultsOf the 21,589 men with localized PCa treated with RP, 740 (3.43%) underwent at least one incontinence procedure during a median of 5 years of follow-up. In total, there were 844 unique incontinence procedures. Male slings were the most common procedure (47.5%), had an intermediate cost compared to the other treatment options, and was the first-choice treatment for the majority of patients (50%). The use of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) was the second most common (35.3%), but also was the most expensive treatment and was first-choice-treatment for 32.3% of patients. On multivariable analysis, metabolic syndrome related disorders, adjuvant/salvage radiation therapy as well as a history of neurological comorbidities were independently associated with an increased likelihood of incontinence surgery.

conclusionsThe receipt of male slings increased and then subsequently decreased, while AUS utilization was stable, and the use of urethral bulking agents was uncommon. From a cost standpoint, AUS was the most expensive option. Finally, patient's comorbidity history and RP related factors were found to influence the choice for primary or subsequent PPI interventions.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrinary IncontinenceUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialHumansMaleProstateProstatectomyTreatment OutcomeUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35729329
OpenAlexW4283211313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.