ArticleBJUI compass2025
In silico tools for mechanical analysis of extra- and intra-luminal artificial urinary sphincters.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In silico tools for mechanical analysis of extra- and intra-luminal artificial urinary sphincters.BJUI compass · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To analyse and compare the functionality of extraluminal and intraluminal artificial urinary sphincters (AUSs), an in silico procedure has been defined and applied. Design and reliability assessments of the AUS are typically performed using a clinical approach, which does not provide data on mechanical stimulation of urethral tissues. Mechanical stimulation may determine tissue degeneration, such as urethral atrophy or erosion, the main causes of AUS failure. In silico techniques can provide a quantitative description of stress and strain fields due to the interaction between tissues and AUS and allow investigating an extremely large number of situations, considering different configurations of AUS and urethra. Materials and Methods: Computational investigations were carried out to evaluate the mechanical reliability of the main extraluminal and intraluminal AUS, AMS 800 and Relief. The lower urinary tract was modelled based on previous experiments. The AUS models took into account the main components that interact with biological tissues. Urethra and AUS models were coupled and used to investigate mechanical stimulation of urethral tissues. Results: In silico simulations provide quantitative information about the mechanical stimulation of urethral tissue, such as compressive strain and stress and hydrostatic pressure, due to interaction with the AUS. Such mechanical quantities allow a comparison of reliability between extraluminal and intraluminal devices. Conclusions: The activities define and demonstrate the effectiveness of a novel in silico approach to the design and reliability assessment of AUS devices, increasing the investigative possibilities and reducing the time, ethical and economic costs.
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.