Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345303›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology

Characterizing patient experiences with repeat artificial urinary sphincter revisions through quantitative surveys and qualitative patient interviews.

Phillip J Huffman, Gabriella Ewachiw, Ryan Johnson, Mitchell M Huang, Hasan Dani, Pedro G Knijnik, Arthur F da Silva, Arthur L Burnett, Jacek L Mostwin, Edward J Wright and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Phillip J HuffmanThe Brady Urological Institute at JHBMC, 4940 Eastern Avenue, 301 Building, Suite 3100, Baltimore, MD 21224, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4736-9430
Gabriella EwachiwJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ryan JohnsonJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mitchell M HuangJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Hasan DaniJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Pedro G KnijnikJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Arthur F da SilvaJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Arthur L BurnettJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jacek L MostwinJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Edward J WrightJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Andrew J CohenJames Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement remains the gold-standard treatment for post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI), despite their need for periodic surgical revision. Objective: To understand the experiences of patients who undergo repeat AUS revisions. Design: Mixed design including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews for thematic analysis. Methods: Men with ⩾2 revisions were collected from a single-institution, retrospective database of AUS patients. Participants were interviewed about their prostatectomy, incontinence, AUS placement, and revisions. A survey was administered utilizing validated tools (e.g., Decision Regret Scale (DRS), Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-7) for quantitative analysis. Interview transcripts were used for qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Of 26 respondents, 20 completed the interview. Twenty-three men completed the survey. The mean DRS score for prostatectomy was 24 (standard deviation (SD) = 27), indicating low regret. Median Incontinence Impact Questionnaire score was 54 (SD = 27), with 70% of participants describing their PPUI as "severe." Participants experienced a significant decrease in daily pad usage with AUS placement (5.5 pre-AUS vs 1.4 post-AUS, Conclusions: Initial improvement and positive experiences with urologists motivate patients to undergo AUS repeat revision. Urologists should emphasize the limitations of the AUS before placement and follow up with patients to evaluate their needs for future care.

Indexed as

AUSpost-prostatectomy urinary incontinencequalitativequality of life

Identifiers

PMID39345303
PMCPMC11428194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.