ArticleThe Journal of urology2026
First-In-Human Assessment of the UroActive Electronic Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Treating Male Patients with Stress Urinary Incontinence.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Surgical Technique: Evolving Strategies to Reduce Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy.Current urology reports · 2026Article
- Modifications of Anti-Incontinence Procedures for Radiated Patients: A Narrative Review.Current urology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy during the first year of use of the UroActive device in male patients with stress urinary incontinence. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective, multicenter, single-arm, first-in-human study enrolled 6 male patients with bothersome stress urinary incontinence unresponsive to conservative or surgical treatments. After UroActive implantation, follow-up was planned for 5 years (postactivation). Study end points included successful device activation, revision, and explantation rates. Other end points assessed 24 hours pad-weight test reduction, pad usage, uroflowmetry, postvoid residual urine, and patient-reported outcomes (International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaires UI Short Form, EQ-5D, I-QOL, Urinary Symptom Profile). Adverse events were collected throughout the study.
resultsAll 6 patients underwent successful implantation and device activation (100%). No explants or revisions were required during the 365 days postactivation. At 365 days postactivation, the pad weight was reduced by ≥ 50% in all patients and reduced by ≥ 75% in 5 (83.3%). The median pad use decreased from 3.7 to 1.0 pad per day. Uroflowmetry remained within acceptable ranges, and postvoid residual urine was minimal. Quality of life scores significantly improved across all instruments. Nine device deficiencies were reported, all involving the patient remote control. No unanticipated serious adverse events occurred.
conclusionsIn men with stress urinary incontinence, the UroActive device demonstrates promising feasibility, safety, and functional outcomes during the 365 days postactivation. Patients experienced substantial symptom improvement and high satisfaction, with no surgical revisions. Larger studies with extended follow-up are needed to confirm these findings and assess long-term device performance.
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.