ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Using a stress reservoir to improve urine leakage after artificial urinary sphincter implantation.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough the longest efficacy record, some patients report about urinary leakage during higher intra-abdominal pressure after Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS) implantation. To improve the continent results, we placed in addition to the occluding cuff and the pressure regulating balloon, in a second procedure a stress-relief reservoir in lower abdomen, for additional passive pressure transmission to the occluding cuff.
methodsIn this retrospective monocentric data analysis between 2011 and 2018, 80 patients with persistence incontinence after AUS implantation were included. Stress-relief reservoir was indicated in 12 patients with involuntary leakage of urine, that occurred when intra-abdominal pressure raised.
resultsIn all 12 cases, the stress reservoir was easily implanted and there were no intraoperative complications. In a mean follow-up time of 53 months, the pad per day usage (p/d) improved from 3 (± 1.2) to 1.7 (± 1.5) (p = 0.001). Two patients with multiple previous abdominal surgeries used an equal number of pads after SRR; however, an improvement during physical exertion was reported. Continence situation was evaluated with a questionnaire and was rated as "excellent", "good", or "satisfactory" by 11 (92%) patients.
conclusionThe persistence of urinary incontinence after AUS is a challenging topic. Implantation of a stress reservoir in carefully selected patients with urinary leakage during higher intra-abdominal pressure is minimally invasive and offers new options to improve the proven long-term record of AUS. Certainly, more investigations are needed to determine the clinical relevance of this approach.
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.