ArticleEuropean urology open science2026
Disparities in Access to Severe Incontinence Surgical Treatment with Artificial Urinary Sphincter after Radical Prostatectomy in France: A Nationwide Nested Case-control Study.
Article in European urology open science, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Socioeconomic and geographic disparities in surgical treatment utilization may persist even within universal healthcare systems. Objective: To determine whether socioeconomic and geographic disparities exist in artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) utilization among men with post-prostatectomy incontinence in a universal healthcare setting. Design setting and participants: This nationwide, population-based, nested case-control study used French administrative health data from 2006 to 2018. Among 718,360 men diagnosed with prostate cancer, 266,927 underwent radical prostatectomy. Of these, 5,064 received AUS for post-prostatectomy incontinence (cases). A comparator group of 3,022 men with documented persistent incontinence but no AUS was identified using repeated penile sheath prescriptions more than one year after surgery. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Associations between AUS implantation and demographic, clinical, socioeconomic, and geographic factors were assessed using multivariable conditional logistic regression accounting for follow-up time and center-level clustering. Results and limitations: AUS implantation occurred in 1.9% of post-prostatectomy patients. Higher odds of implantation were observed across socioeconomic deprivation categories, with the strongest association in the most socially deprived group (FDEP Q5: OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32-2.02). Factors linked to lower odds of AUS implantation included older age (70-80 years: OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36-0.54; >80 years: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.78), prior TURP (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.13-0.22), and radiotherapy (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89). Urban residence was associated with slightly lower odds of AUS implantation compared with rural residence (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72-0.99), whereas distance to a high-volume center was not significantly associated. Conclusions: In France's universal healthcare system, socioeconomic and geographic factors were not associated with lower odds of receiving AUS among more deprived or rural groups, indicating no evidence of disadvantage for these populations. However, the low overall use of AUS highlights potential non-structural barriers such as limited referral, clinical awareness, or patient engagement that may affect treatment uptake.
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.