ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2023
Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS).
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Outcomes After Discontinuing Routine Gentamicin Irrigation During AMS 800 Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation: A Single-Centre Retrospective Before-After Cohort Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial urinary sphincter erosion and infection: a contemporary review of perioperative considerations and management.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Special series on the surgical management of stress urinary incontinence in men.Translational andrology and urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the bacterial colonization on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) devices following revision surgery. We aim to evaluate the microbial compositions of explanted AUS devices identified on standard culture at our institution. Methods: Twenty-three AUS devices explanted were included in this study. During revision surgery, aerobic and anaerobic culture swabs are taken from the implant, capsule, fluid surrounding the device, and biofilm, if present. Culture specimens are sent to the hospital laboratory for routine culture evaluation immediately upon case completion. Differences in number of microorganism species detected across samples (richness) against demographic variables were determined through backwards selection of all variables using analysis of variance (ANOVA). We assessed the prevalence (how many times each species occurred) of microbial culture species. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical package in R (version 4.2.1). Results: Cultures reported positive results in 20 (87%) cases. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the most commonly identified bacteria among explanted AUS devices (n=16, 80%). Among two of the four infected/eroded implants, more virulent organisms such as Conclusions: The majority of AUS devices removed for non-infectious reasons harbor organisms on traditional culture at the time of explantation. The most commonly identified bacteria in this setting is coagulase-negative staphylococci, which may be a result of bacterial colonization introduced at the time of implant. Conversely, infected implants may harbor microorganisms with higher virulence including fungal elements. Bacterial colonization or biofilm formation on implants may not necessarily equate to clinically infected devices. Future studies with more sophisticated technology, such as next-generation sequencing or extended cultures, may evaluate microbial compositions of biofilm at a more granular level to understand its role in device infections.
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.