ArticleAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2026
Artificial urinary sphincter surgery in the UK: are we following the guidelines?
Article in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2026. 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
introductionArtificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is a guideline-recommended treatment for male stress urinary incontinence. Despite its widespread use, it is thought that there is no standardisation in AUS practice. This study aims to report current AUS insertion practices in the UK and highlight any discrepancies.
methodsA REDCap survey was conducted under the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) Section of Female, Neurological, and Urodynamic Urology, and reported using the CHERRIES checklist. Outcomes were framed using the International Continence Society (ICS) document and recent BAUS consensus document.
resultsThe survey received 34 responses (response rate: 44-94%). Most respondents (80%) used video-urodynamics and patient-reported outcomes in patient workup. Loss of compliance on urodynamics was the most common contraindication, and detrusor overactivity was often treated before AUS surgery. Perioperative preparation and implantation techniques varied significantly from the ICS document, as did complication management.
conclusionsThe reported variation may result from local or national influences, a lack of high-quality evidence and divergent surgical training. This variability impacts the heterogeneity of outcomes and their reporting. Future efforts should focus on adopting the new national consensus to standardise practice, improving training curricula, researching the effects of variability on surgical outcomes and enhancing the quality of evidence in this field.
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.