ReviewProstate international2024
Surgical management of post prostatectomy incontinence.
Review in Prostate international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-In-Human Assessment of the UroActive Electronic Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Treating Male Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence.The Journal of urology · 2026Article
- Anterior versus posterior first approach for robot assisted radical prostatectomy-perioperative, functional, and oncological outcomes.Prostate international · 2025Article
- Global research trends on the links between prostate cancer and postoperative urinary incontinence between 2014 and 2024: a bibliometrics and visualized study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Phenotypic stratification predicts the pace, but not the outcome, of continence recovery after radical prostatectomy.PloS one · 2025Article
- Complications of stress urinary incontinence surgery in men: a comparative analysis of urethral sling versus artificial urinary sphincter from a large national database.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) is a well-recognized and bothersome complication following radical prostatectomy. Conservative measures such as pelvic floor physical therapy, biofeedback, and medication are first line management of PPI. When first line therapies fail, patients are offered a variety of surgical procedures based on the degree of incontinence, prior radiation therapy, and comorbidities. Among the various surgical options, placement of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for PPI. However, AUS placement has a high rate of re-operation and requires good manual dexterity. In cases of mild-moderate incontinence, especially in patients without prior radiation therapy, male slings and proACT are a less invasive option. Bulking therapy, although highly successful for female stress urinary incontinence (SUI), is not currently advised in the treatment of male SUI. Regardless of surgical approach used to treat PPI, providers should counsel patients regarding risks of re-operation and have an open an honest discussion regarding the degree of continence that can be restored following each procedure.
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.