ArticleEuropean urology open science2025
Next-generation Solutions: Are Patients Ready for Electronic Artificial Urinary Sphincters for Male Incontinence?
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.
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.
- Evolving Trends and Perioperative Outcomes of Surgical Treatment for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: Results from the GRAND Study Register.European urology open science · 2026Article
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
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
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.