ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025
Cuff downsizing in the treatment of non-mechanical persistent or recurrent stress urinary incontinence: narrative review.
Review in Central European journal of 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
Introduction: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a common complication following radical prostatectomy, affecting up to 60.0% of men. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has been the gold standard for treating severe SUI since its introduction in 1973. Despite its efficacy, long-term complications such as device failure and recurrent incontinence are relatively common, often necessitating revision surgeries. This review focuses on cuff downsizing as a revision strategy for non-mechanical AUS failure. Material and methods: A literature review was conducted using PubMed/Medline, covering studies published between January 2000 and December 2023. Key words included: "artificial urinary sphincter", "cuff downsizing", "urethral atrophy", "non-mechanical failure" and "male urinary incontinence revision". Inclusion criteria were studies addressing cuff downsizing as a primary revision for non-mechanical failures. Only English-language studies were reviewed. We analyzed the timing of revisions, follow-up duration, and outcomes such as continence rates, complication rates, and device survival. Results: Six retrospective studies involving 206 patients were included in the present review. Cuff downsizing was performed as the sole intervention in 3 studies and in combination with other approaches in the remaining 3 studies. The median cuff size decreased from 4.5 cm preoperatively to 4.0 cm postoperatively, with 8.0-12.0% of patients receiving a cuff downsized by more than 1.0 cm. Across all studies, continence rates after revision surgery ranged from 52.0% to 90.0% based on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Device survival rates varied from 64.0% to 95.0%, with infection and urethral erosion being the leading causes of device explantation. Conclusions: Cuff downsizing is a reasonable revision strategy for non-mechanical AUS failure, offering similar continence outcomes and complication rates compared to alternative techniques.
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.