ArticleBMC urology2025
A case of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in a patient who underwent both urethroplasty and ileal neobladder construction.
Article in BMC urology, 2025. 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
backgroundAUS implantation is the standard treatment recommended by the European Urological Association and American Urological Association guidelines to treat stress urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency. AUS implantation following a neobladder construction or urethroplasty has been previously reported; however, there are only a few reports on patients who have undergone both procedures.This report presents a unique case of a patient who underwent artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation after undergoing both urethroplasty and ileal neobladder construction. CASE PRESENTATION: A 76-year-old male with a history of urethral stricture and ileal neobladder construction was referred to our department because of persistent stress urinary incontinence. A pressure-regulating balloon was placed in the left lower abdomen, where the peritoneum remained intact. The AUS was activated and urinary continence was restored approximately seven weeks post-surgery. In addition to standard usage instructions, the patient was advised on timed voiding and deactivation during the night and in the event of fever. Urinary incontinence significantly improved, and the effectiveness was maintained without complications one year post-surgery. Device infection and urethral erosion are critical complications that should be considered during AUS implantation. We focused on the site of AUS implantation and perioperative infection control to solve this problem.
conclusionAUS implantation was performed in the patient who underwent both urethroplasty and ileal neobladder construction. We felt that meticulous measures during and after the perioperative period are necessary to prevent urethral erosion and device infection.
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.