ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2024
Skin preparation before artificial urinary sphincter surgery: is there a difference between protocols?
Article 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: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard for severe male stress urinary incontinence (SUI). This study aims to evaluate the interest of a new cutaneous preparation regarding the risk of early device infection. Methods: A retrospective review of medical records has been built with all patients who underwent an AUS, implanted by experienced surgeons, between January 2010 and January 2023. Before January 2015, all AUS received a standard protocol (SP) of cutaneous cleansing with soap povidone iodine and disinfection with alcoholic povidone iodine. After January 2015, all AUS received the new protocol (NP) with two cleansings with soap povidone iodine and two disinfections with alcoholic povidone iodine. The primary focus was to compare the risk of early device infection between the two protocols. Multivariate analyses were done with several risk factors such as age, diabetes, underlying pathology (prostate cancer surgery, surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia or others), past history of pelvic radiation therapy and past AUS implantation. Results: One hundred and fifty-six cases were enrolled, with 34 following the SP and 122 following the NP. In the univariate analysis, there were 15 explantations in the SP arm versus 8 for the NP arm due to infection (45.5% Conclusions: Our study showed no correlation between the two types of skin preparation and the risk of AUS removal or revision. Future studies are needed to highlight the legitimate risk factors.
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.