Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40066191›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2025

Next-generation Solutions: Are Patients Ready for Electronic Artificial Urinary Sphincters for Male Incontinence?

Marc Kidess, Troya Ivanova, Julian Hermans, Leo Stadelmeier, Marina Hoffmann, Nikolaos Pyrgidis, Julian Marcon, Michael Chaloupka, Ricarda M Bauer, Christian G Stief and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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.

Marc KidessDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Troya IvanovaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Julian HermansDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Leo StadelmeierDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Marina HoffmannDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Nikolaos PyrgidisDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Julian MarconDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Michael ChaloupkaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ricarda M BauerUrologie Maximilianstrasse, Munich, Germany.
Christian G StiefDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Yannic VolzDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Urology is characterized by continuous innovation. The inception of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) marked a pivotal technological advance and further advances in digital treatment options for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are emerging. Our aim was to assess patient willingness to receive an electronic artificial urinary sphincter (eAUS) implant and identify associated concerns. Methods: Patients who received a first AUS implant (AMS800 system) for post-RP SUI from March 2013 to December 2023 were included. An anonymous survey was used to collect data on demographics, current AUS satisfaction, daily technology use, interest in an eAUS, and concerns about potential eAUS technical malfunctions. Data were analyzed using SPSS, with significance set at Key findings and limitations: Out of 345 patients, 208 (60.2%) completed the questionnaire. The majority were aged 71-80 yr (51.7%) and had a university education (37.7%). Satisfaction with their AUS was high: 79.8% of the respondents were satisfied, 88.9% were satisfied with its handling, and 89.4% would choose an AUS implant again. Notably, 60.4% showed interest in an eAUS, with younger respondents and those who use technology on a daily basis expressing greater interest. Preferred control methods included remote-based (78.4%) and smartphone-based (60.0%) options. Concerns about system malfunction (66.4%), connection loss (65.9%), and battery issues (60.0%) were prevalent. Conclusions and clinical implications: There was significant patient interest in an eAUS in our survey, especially among younger individuals and those who use technology daily. Despite high satisfaction with current AUS devices, addressing potential technical malfunctions and patient concerns is crucial for broader acceptance of an eAUS. Patient concerns about technological malfunctions seem to outweigh worries about medical issues. Patient summary: Urology is becoming more advanced with technologies like robotic surgery and electronic artificial urinary sphincters (eAUS). According to our survey, most patients are happy with their current sphincters and are open to eAUS, especially younger patients who are familiar with technology. However, patients are concerned about system malfunctions and connection loss. More research is needed to address technical issues and patient concerns.

Indexed as

Artificial male sphincterIncontinenceTechnology

Identifiers

PMID40066191
PMCPMC11891701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.