Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37305623›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2023

Characterizing the biofilm of artificial urinary sphincters (AUS).

Joon Yau Leong, Jacob Ancira, Jessica Bulafka, Patrick J Shenot, Akhil K Das, Paul H Chung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Joon Yau LeongDepartment of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jacob AnciraRTL Genomics, MicroGen DX, Lubbock, TX, USA.
Jessica BulafkaDepartment of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Patrick J ShenotDepartment of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Akhil K DasDepartment of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paul H ChungDepartment of Urology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial urinary sphincterbiofilmCulturestress urinary incontinence

Identifiers

PMID37305623
PMCPMC10251108

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.