ReviewUrologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2026
[Artificial urinary sphincter: contemporary overview of evidence, long-term outcomes, and clinical practice].
Review in Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince its introduction in 1974, the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) has been considered the gold standard for treatment of moderate to severe male stress urinary incontinence.
objectivesThis article provides an overview of perioperative management and long-term outcomes, offering an evidence-based foundation for clinical practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsCurrent evidence on patient selection, preoperative diagnostics, surgical techniques, long-term outcomes, and management of complications was reviewed, based on recent studies, multicenter cohorts, and registry data.
resultsThe implantation of an AUS generally results in high continence rates and substantial improvement in quality of life. Perioperative risk factors, including prior radiotherapy, diabetes mellitus, or previous urethral procedures, increase the likelihood of postoperative complications such as infections, urethral erosions, or mechanical failure. Specialized centers with extensive experience achieve better functional outcomes and lower revision rates. Despite potential complications, most patients report sustained satisfaction and an improved quality of life following AUS implantation.
conclusionThe AUS is an effective treatment option for moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence. Perioperative risk assessment, specialized implantation techniques, and treatment in experienced centers are crucial for therapeutic success. Prospective registry and multicenter data provide valuable guidance for evidence-based patient selection, complication management, and of long-term outcome optimization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41770309What 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.