ReviewCurrent urology reports2025
Revision of Failed Artificial Urinary Sphincter: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Current urology reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis paper presents a thorough review of the management of patients requiring revision of a previously placed artificial urinary sphincter. The symptoms at presentation and clinical evaluation, along with surgical techniques, are described in detail. RECENT
findingsFortunately for the urologic surgeon, revision and replacement of the artificial urinary sphincter is an uncommon event. Recent research on the procedure focuses on strategies to prevent future revision surgeries, such as a modified surgical technique or interposition of flaps or tissue substitutes between the urethra and the sphincter cuff. Revision and replacement surgery for an artificial urinary sphincter is a challenging procedure requiring thorough pre-operative evaluation, detailed knowledge of the male perineal anatomy, and a surgical plan that includes multiple surgical approaches for any given patient. Future research should focus on the identification of patient factors and prevention of device complications to prevent or reduce the need for revision surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41335386What 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.