ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2025
Medical malpractice after artificial urinary sphincter implantation.
Article in Translational andrology and 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) remains the gold standard of urinary incontinence management for moderate and severe cases. However, risks such as erosion, infection, and mechanical failure are present when using these sphincters. Therefore, it is essential to explore this aspect of AUS in order to deliver more effective patient care. This analysis offers the first investigation into medical malpractice cases pertaining to AUS placement. Methods: The LexisNexis+ and Westlaw databases were used to access all federal and state cases, jury verdicts, and settlements. The LexisNexis+ and Westlaw databases were queried for the term "artificial urinary sphincter" or "artificial urethral sphincter" between the years 1990 and 2024. Cases selected for patients suing a urologist or medical system after implantation of an AUS. Common reasons for exclusion included the plaintiff suing a urologist who performed prostate surgery requiring eventual placement of AUS. Results: Investigation of the LexisNexis+ database yielded 103 cases. The Westlaw database offered 41 cases. After exclusion criteria, 24 cases were included from the LexisNexis+ database and 3 cases from Westlaw; 14 cases were ruled in favor of the defendant; 4 cases were ruled in favor of the plaintiff with awards ranging from $46,400-$980,000; 4 cases were settled with payouts ranging from $70,000-$4,500,000. The most common cause for litigation included damage to a device, which was a precipitating issue in 46% of cases. Failure of technique of AUS placement was alleged in 33% of cases. The region of the United States with the most cases was the South with 58% of cases. Precipitating issues that resulted in outcomes in favor of the plaintiff were diverse and included failure of informed consent, failure of technique, infection, pain, and damage to the device. Conclusions: Urologic surgeons placing artificial urethral sphincters face the risk of medical malpractice litigation.
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.