Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37366389›Full record

ReviewResearch and reports in urology2023

Surgical Management of Male Stress Incontinence: Techniques, Indications, and Pearls for Success.

Wesley J Smith, Maia E VanDyke, Nikit Venishetty, Brian T Langford, Bryce P Franzen, Allen F Morey

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research and reports in urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wesley J SmithDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Maia E VanDykeDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Nikit VenishettyDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Brian T LangfordDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Bryce P FranzenDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Allen F MoreyDepartment of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has detrimental and long-lasting effects on patients. Management of this condition is an evolving field with multiple options for surgical treatment. We sought to review the pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative considerations, post-operative care, and future directions for treatment of male SUI. Methods: A literature review was performed using the PubMed platform to identify peer-reviewed, English-language articles published within the last 5 years pertaining to management of male stress urinary incontinence with an emphasis on devices currently on the market in the United States including the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS), male urethral slings, and the ProACT Results: Twenty articles were included in the final contemporary review. Pre-operative workup most commonly included demonstration of incontinence, PPD, and cystoscopy. Definition of success varied by study; the most common definition used was social continence (0-1 pads per day). Reported rates of success were higher for the AUS than for male urethral slings (73-93% vs 70-90%, respectively). Complications for these procedures include urinary retention, erosions, infections, and device malfunction. Newer treatment options including adjustable balloon systems and adjustable slings show promise but lack long-term follow-up. Conclusion: Patient selection remains the primary consideration for surgical decision-making for management of male SUI. The AUS continues to be the gold standard for moderate-to-severe male SUI but comes with inherent risk of need for revision. Male slings may be a superior option for appropriately selected men with mild incontinence but are inferior to the AUS for moderate and severe incontinence. Ongoing research will shed light on long-term results for newer options such as the ProACT and REMEEX systems.

Indexed as

AdVance slingAdVance XP slingartificial urinary sphinctermale stress incontinencemale urethral slingProACTREMEEX slingVirtue sling

Identifiers

PMID37366389
PMCPMC10290851
OpenAlexW4381662338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.