ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2023
A global, propensity-score matched analysis of patients receiving artificial urinary sphincters and the risk of complications, infections, and re-interventions.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter Analysis of Long-Term Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Surgery After Urethroplasty.The Journal of urology · 2026Article
- The Artificial Urinary Sphincter Clinical Outcomes Trial: Primary Results.The Journal of urology · 2026Observational
- A case of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in a patient who underwent both urethroplasty and ileal neobladder construction.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Management of Post-RALP SUI and ED - What are and What Should we be Doing?Current urology reports · 2024Review
- Skin preparation before artificial urinary sphincter surgery: is there a difference between protocols?Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) are the gold standard treatment for patients with stress urinary incontinence. However, risk factors for implant infection, complication, or re-intervention (removal, repair, replacement) are incompletely understood. We sought to understand the impact of various patient factors on the risk of device failure by leveraging a large, multi-national research database. Methods: We queried the TriNetX database for all adult patients undergoing AUS. We evaluated the impact of age, body mass index, race, ethnicity, diabetes (DM), smoking history, history of radiation therapy (RT), history of radical prostatectomy (RP) and history of urethroplasty on select clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was the need for re-intervention defined by current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Secondary outcomes included overall device complication rate and infection rate defined by international classification of diseases (ICD) codes. Analytics were performed on TriNetX which calculated risk ratios (RR) and Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival. We evaluated our outcomes first on the entire population and then repeated analyses for each individual comparison cohort using the remaining demographic variables to perform propensity score matching (PSM). Results: The overall rates of AUS re-intervention, complication and infection were 23.4%, 24.1% and 6.4%, respectively. KM analysis showed median AUS survival (no need for re-intervention) at 10.6 years and projected 20-year survival probability at 31.3%. Patients with a history of smoking or urethroplasty were at higher risk of AUS complication and re-intervention. Patients with DM or a history of RT were at higher risk of AUS infection. Patients with a history of RT were at higher risk of AUS complication. All risk factors besides race showed a difference in device removal itself. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this represents the largest series to follow patients with an AUS. About one-quarter of AUS patients needed re-intervention. Multiple demographics place patients at increased risk of re-intervention, infection, or complication. These results can help guide patient selection and counseling with the goal of reducing complications.
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.