ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2024
Artificial urinary sphincter for neurogenic 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. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is most known for its use in the treatment of moderate to severe post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence. However, another lesser-known indication includes stress incontinence related to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) in the neurogenic bladder population. The purpose of this review is to discuss specific technical considerations related to device implantation in this population, efficacy, durability, and complications. Methods: We performed a non-systematic literature review using the PubMed Database to identify articles specifically related to treatment of neurogenic urinary incontinence using an artificial urinary sphincter. Key Content and Findings: More proximal placement of the cuff at the bladder neck is preferred in the neurogenic population due to higher rates of erosion and complications related to frequent clean intermittent catheterization or cystoscopic procedures when placed along the bulbar urethra. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic cuff placement has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to open surgery in select patients. Although continence rates are highly variable due the subjectivity of the term, functional continence (≤1 pad, ± nighttime incontinence) is reported to be between 75-90%. The need for secondary surgery for explanation with or without revision/replacement is higher in neurogenic patients compared to non-neurogenic patients. Conclusions: Neurogenic urinary incontinence is a complex condition due to the interplay of urethral resistance and bladder function/compliance. While there are a variety of strategies to treat neurogenic incontinence, high quality data from direct comparisons are lacking. Although AUS comes with a high revision rate, functional outcomes for continence with bladder neck placement are promising in this population.
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.