ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Minimally Invasive Treatment of Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women: A Prospective Comparative Analysis between Bulking Agent and Single-Incision Sling.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hydrogel-Based Therapies for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence: From Bulking Agents to Regenerative Platforms-A Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Midurethral Sling Surgery: Impacts on Sexual Function and Approaches to Complications.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Intraurethral cross-linked hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (DEXSUI®) injection versus mid-urethral sling for stress urinary incontinence: a comparative short-term outcome analysis.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and Safety Profile of Urethral Bulking with BulkamidInternational urogynecology journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of bulking agents and single-incision slings in the treatment of urinary incontinence in 159 patients during a 29-month follow-up period. MATERIAL AND
methodsOf the 159 patients suffering from stress urinary incontinence, 64 were treated with bulking agents (PAHG Bulkamid
resultsThe bulking agents showed high efficacy and safety during the 29-month follow-up. Post-operative complications were recorded in both groups, with only two significant differences. The Bulkamid group experienced no pain, while 10.8% of the ALTIS group experienced groin pain and 5% experienced de novo urgency. Furthermore, patients treated with bulking agents experienced reduced nicturia (0.78 vs. 0.92 in patients treated with single-incision slings.). In both groups, we noticed a significant improvement in QoL (quality of life), with a halved ICIQ-UI-SF (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urine Incontinence-Short Form) score which was completed to assess the impact of urine symptoms. After 24 months of therapy, the Bulkamid group saw a decrease from 14.58 ± 5.11 at baseline to 5.67 ± 1.90 (
conclusionsIn terms of efficacy and safety, bulking agents had notable results over the 29-month follow-up period. Furthermore, the patients treated with bulking agents reported a lower incidence of postoperative complications and a no discernible difference in terms of quality of life and sexual activity compared to the ones treated with single-incision slings. Bulking agents can be considered a very reliable therapeutic option based on accurate patient selection.
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.