ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2022
Artificial urinary sphincter implantation with periprostatic cuff placement for urinary incontinence in men.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation is the treatment of choice for male urinary incontinence (UI). The aim of the present study was to evaluate treatment outcomes of UI in men using an AUS with a cuff placed around the prostatic urethra. Material and methods: Forty-three men with preserved prostatic urethra were selected for AUS implantation due to UI. Twenty patients had the cuff implanted around the prostate using the retropubic approach (Group 1), and 23 had the cuff placed around the bulbous urethra (Group 2). Both groups were compared in terms of continence quality as well as intra- and postoperative complications. Results: The groups were comparable with respect to age and duration of follow-up. Median time to complications was 90.3 and 10.7 months in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively ( Conclusions: The analysis indicates that cuff placement around the prostatic urethra results in better continence and is characterised by fewer complications. This method is dedicated for patients who have not had the prostate gland removed. Due to the retrospective nature of this analysis and small groups of patients, it is not possible to formulate ultimate recommendations.
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.