ArticleUrology research & practice2023
The "Minimal-Touch" Technique for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: Description and Outcomes.
Article in Urology research & practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence-based assessment of body composition on primary artificial urinary sphincter placement outcomes.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to describe "minimal-touch" technique for primary artificial urinary sphincter placement and evaluate early device outcomes by comparing it with a historical cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe identified patients who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement at our institution from 1983 to 2020. Statistical analysis was performed to identify the rate of postoperative device infection in patients who underwent minimal touch versus those who underwent our traditional technique.
results526/2601 total procedures (20%) were performed using our "minimal-touch" approach, including 271/1554 patients (17%) who underwent primary artificial urinary sphincter placement over the study period. Around 2.3% of patients experienced device infection after artificial urinary sphincter procedures. In the "minimal-touch" era, 3/526 patients (0.7%) experienced device infection, including 1/271 (0.4%) of those with primary artificial urinary sphincter placement. In comparison, 46/2075 patients (2.7%) experienced device infection using the historical approach, with 29/1283 (2.3%) of primary artificial urinary sphincter placements resulting in removal for infection. Notably, 90% of device infections occurred within the first 6 months after primary placement. The difference in cumulative incidence of device infections at 12 months did not meet our threshold for statistical significance for either the total cohort of all AUS procedures (primary and revision) or the sub-group of only those patients undergoing primary artificial urinary sphincter placement (Gray K-sample test; P=.13 and .21, respectively).
conclusionThe "minimal-touch" approach for artificial urinary sphincter placement represents an easy-to-implement modification with potential implications on device outcomes. While early results appear promising, longer-term follow-up with greater statistical power is needed to determine whether this approach will lower the infection risk.
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.