ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Urethral instrumentation in men with artificial urinary sphincter: a national survey among Brazilian urologists.
Article in World journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeUrethral instrumentation (UI) in patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) demands technical considerations and poses a risk of urethral erosion, leading to serious clinical and legal consequences. We conducted a national survey to evaluate the knowledge and experience of Brazilian urologists with UI in these patients.
methodsThis study used an electronic survey distributed to members of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The survey included 19 multiple-choice questions assessing sociodemographic characteristics, practice patterns, AUS training, knowledge of AUS components and functionality, experience with UI in AUS patients, and interest in further training. Urologists were classified as 'competent' in AUS manipulation if they had prior experience and confidence in performing UI.
resultsAmong 536 participants (median age 47 years [39-55]), 72.8% reported involvement in urological emergencies, with 89.9% indicating inadequate AUS training during residency. Only 29.7% had occasional or regular involvement with AUS surgeries. Of the participants, 53.4% had performed UI in men with an AUS. Prior UI had been attempted by healthcare staff in 36.2% of cases. Only 46.8% reported knowledge of AUS components and 45.1% felt competent in deactivating it. Regarding urethral catheterization, 47.2% knew the safe catheter diameter, and 20.9% identified safe catheterization duration. Overall, 45.1% self-declared competence in UI, yet many gave incorrect answers on catheter size and duration. Competence strongly correlated with knowledge of AUS components, regular implant involvement, and prior experience. Most (89.3%) expressed interest in additional training for UI.
conclusionThis study highlights significant gaps in training and knowledge among Brazilian urologists regarding UI in AUS patients. These deficiencies underscore the potential for enhanced education to improve patient outcomes and reduce AUS-associated complications in Brazil and possibly broader international contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39692867What 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.