ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024
The male slings: an effective and safe alternative surgical treatment to the artificial urinary sphincter for male stress urinary incontinence?-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. 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.
- Timing and Cost Consideration in Surgery for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence For Current Urology Reports.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Male stress urinary incontinence surgery in Australia: Temporal trends over two decades.BJUI compass · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The ideal candidate for a male sling (MS) should have a mild to moderate degree of stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This narrative review article evaluates the current MS devices in the commercial market and examines the role of MS as an effective and safe alternative treatment option for male SUI. Methods: The available literature on MS was reviewed and relevant clinical studies pertaining to each MS were summarised with emphasis on device design and technology as well as specific surgical findings relating to clinical outcomes. Key Content and Findings: Over the past two decades, there have been considerable scientific advances in MS design and technology, and MS is an attractive alternative for patients who might not require or want an artificial urinary sphincter. The modern MS can be classified as adjustable or non-adjustable types and is placed either through a retropubic or transobturator (TO) approach. Strict patient selection and counselling, selection of MS with proven clinical records, and safe surgical practice are paramount to ensure a high continence rate, good patient satisfaction, and low postoperative complications. Published data on various MS materials and devices showed reasonable clinical efficacy and safety outcomes, although many of these synthetic MS devices may not be available worldwide due to a lack of regulatory approval in many countries. While the ideal MS is probably yet to be developed, continued scientific advances in slings design, mesh technology, and more refined surgical techniques will improve the continence rate and deliver better safety records. Conclusions: As clinical data matures with longer-term outcomes coupled with advances in scientific designs and technology, the ability to have and select the optimal MS for a particular patient will come to fruition.
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.