ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024
The fragile urethra: what to do next?-a narrative review.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Although the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has demonstrated successful outcomes in treating male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) for the past five decades, this procedure also carries inherent risks, including recurrent SUI, device malfunction, local tissue compromise, and infection/erosion, all of which may require revision surgery with or without device replacement. Patients that are at the highest risk for such untoward events often possess unhealthy urethral tissue (termed a "fragile urethra") that is compromised and unable to provide optimal cuff coaptation and continence. Accordingly, there are several techniques to address recalcitrant SUI in the setting of a fragile urethra to afford an improved chance of return to continence. Here, we review characteristics of patients that are at higher risk for an untoward outcome following AUS implantation and further define strategies to promote optimal success with device implantation. The aim of this paper is to review the available literature and describe surgical options for male SUI in patients with known or anticipated urethral tissue compromise. Methods: A thorough literature review was completed by querying PubMed for relevant articles. Search terms included artificial urinary sphincter, failure, recalcitrant, urethral atrophy, fragile urethra, revision, radiation, cystectomy, incontinence, and/or urethroplasty published between 1975 and 2022. Key Content and Findings: Options for management of the fragile urethra include cuff relocation, cuff downsizing, tandem cuff placement, transcorporal cuff placement, pressure regulating balloon exchange with increased or decreased pressure, bulbospongiosus preservation, sub-cuff ventral capsulotomy, urethral wrapping with graft, and in select cases, urinary diversion, or complete device removal with a return to SUI. Proper patient selection is paramount to optimize outcomes. Advantages and disadvantages of each strategy are reviewed. Conclusions: Numerous techniques are viable options for patients with recalcitrant SUI in the setting of a fragile urethra, but high-quality evidence with reproducible outcomes for many of these strategies remain limited. Proper patient selection as well as adequate counseling by experienced implant surgeons may help optimize outcomes. Further multi-institutional investigations with longer term outcomes are needed to improve patient selection and counseling with shared decision-making prior to any intervention.
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.