ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024
Surgical strategies in artificial urinary sphincter revision surgery: troubleshooting the complications.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Case - Artificial urinary sphincter pressure-regulating balloon perforation following increased intra-abdominal pressure.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026Article
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 urinary incontinence (PPUI) is an important issue in the urological practice and imposes a negative effect on quality of life (QoL). Despite recent technological advances, PPUI remains a common complication and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is regarded as the most effective long-term surgical treatment for moderate-to-severe stress urinary incontinence. Success rates for AUS as defined by a continence status of zero to one pad per day range from 59% to 90%. One potential downside of the AUS is the need for periodic revisions in a number of patients. Revision and explantation rates due to mechanical failure, urethral atrophy, infection and erosion vary considerably among studies with reports of 8-45% and 7-17%, respectively. These complications can be classified into different categories, including recurrent or refractory incontinence, erosion and/or infection, and other complications. This review article aims to describe the main AUS-related complications and their management strategies. Diagnostic work-up strategies are explored to facilitate timely identification and management of these complications. Additionally, emerging technologies and future directions in AUS development are discussed, highlighting potential advancements to mitigate complications and enhance device performance. This review consolidates current knowledge and provides insights for clinicians to manage the complexities associated with AUS therapy effectively.
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.