ArticleThe world journal of men's health2026
Evaluating the Impact of Centralizing Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation Services in France: A National Population-Based Model on Travel Times, Equity, and Patient Outcomes.
Article in The world journal of men's health, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeHigher annual center volume for artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation is associated with improved survival without device removal. We assessed the impact of four centralization scenarios on AUS removal rates, patient travel burden, and workload redistribution to inform healthcare policy. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a national, population-based cohort study using the Observapur database, which includes all men in France treated for prostate cancer or benign prostatic hyperplasia who underwent their first AUS implantation between 2006 and 2018. Patients were identified using reimbursement codes; 7,776 had complete geographic data. We modeled four centralization scenarios: (A) closure of very low-volume centers (<1 AUS procedure/year); (B) closure of low-volume centers (<5 procedures/year); (C) closure of centers performing <10 procedures/year with reallocation to high-volume centers (>20 procedures/year); and (D) closure of centers with the highest AUS removal rates. The primary outcome was the predicted 1- and 2-year AUS removal rate. Secondary outcomes included changes in travel distances and workload redistribution.
resultsAnnual closures ranged from 25 centers (Scenario A) to 138 centers (Scenario C), affecting 381 (Scenario A) to 3,250 (Scenario C) patients. Travel distances increased from -1.8 km (Scenario A) to +43.6 km (Scenario C). AUS removal risk was reduced across all scenarios at 2 years: Scenario A (24.0%), B (25.2%), C (33.8%), and D (19.3%). Workload redistribution was highest in Scenario C, where 65 centers experienced a >50% increase in procedures.
conclusionsCentralizing AUS implantation improves patient outcomes by reducing device removal rates, but the impact on additional workload varies. Scenario C offers the greatest survival benefit but imposes the highest travel and workload burden. Moderate centralization (Scenarios A or B) provides a balanced approach, improving outcomes while maintaining accessibility and feasibility.
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.