Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38985294›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Comparing the lifespan of virgin artificial urinary sphincters in radiated patients: transcorporal vs. standard placement.

Kamil Malshy, Siddharth Marthi, Rebecca Ortiz, Edouard Nicaise, Borivoj Golijanin, Kennon Miller, Lindsey Hartsell, Madeline Cancian

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

8 authors.

Kamil MalshyThe Minimally Invasive Urology Institute, The Miriam Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 86, 8th street, Providence, RI, 02906, US. Kamilmalshy@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4130-8987
Siddharth MarthiDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Rebecca OrtizThe Minimally Invasive Urology Institute, The Miriam Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 86, 8th street, Providence, RI, 02906, US.
Edouard NicaiseDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Borivoj GolijaninThe Minimally Invasive Urology Institute, The Miriam Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 86, 8th street, Providence, RI, 02906, US.
Kennon MillerThe Minimally Invasive Urology Institute, The Miriam Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 86, 8th street, Providence, RI, 02906, US.
Lindsey HartsellDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Madeline CancianDepartment of Urology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the lifespan of first transcorporal cuff (TC) placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) versus standard placement (SP) in patients with prior radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer (PCa).

methodsWe reviewed first (virgin) AUS placements from two high-volume care centers between 1/2011 and 1/2021, including PCa patients with RT history. AUS lifespan was assessed via the hazard ratio of device explantation and/or revision within a ten-year timeframe for the TC vs. SP approaches. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and t-tests compared clinicodemographic variables. Kaplan-Meier curve compared TC and SP lifespan.

results85/314 men with AUS met inclusion criteria, with 38.8% (33/85) in the TC group and 61.2% (52/85) in the SP group. Median ages were 69.8 (IQR = 65.2-73.6) and 67.1 (61.6-72.9), respectively, p = 0.17. Over a median follow up of 51.9 (15.8-86.1) and 80.4 (28.1-128.3) months for the TC and SP, overall, 12 (36.4%) TC devices were removed (four [12.1%] due to mechanical failures; eight [24.2%] erosions, and two [6.1%] infections) vs. 29 (55.8%) in the SP group (14 [26.9%] mechanical failures; 11 [21.1%] erosions, and five [9.6%] infections). No statistically significant differences were observed between the two approaches, with HR = 0.717, 95% CI 0.37-1.44, p = 0.35. The calculated device survival probabilities for the TC vs. SP at one, five, and 10 years were 78.8% vs. 76.9%, 69.3% vs. 58.7%, and 62.1% vs. 46.7%, respectively.

conclusionsTC cuff insertion for the first AUS implantation in pre-radiated patients showed to be comparable to SP when it comes to device survival, with comparable complication rates. Current guidance for approach selection is primarily based on patient selection and surgeon preference.

Indexed as

Prostatic NeoplasmsUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialAgedHumansMaleMiddle AgedProsthesis FailureProsthesis ImplantationRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsArtificial urinary sphincterCuffDevice lifespanRadiotherapyStress urinary incontinenceTranscorporal

Identifiers

PMID38985294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.