Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42368667›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology2026

From bench to bedside: A narrative review of regenerative medicine approaches for postprostatectomy incontinence.

W Garrett Haffke, Thomas R Wong, Runzhuo Ma, Laura E Davis, Ilaha Isali

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

W Garrett HaffkeSchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Thomas R WongCollege of Medicine, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Runzhuo MaDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Laura E DavisDepartment of Urology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Ilaha IsaliDepartment of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postprostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPUI) is a prevalent complication following radical prostatectomy, with long‑term incontinence affecting up to one‑third of patients. Conventional treatments are limited by inconsistent efficacy, side effects or invasiveness, indicating demand for alternative therapies. This narrative review assessed clinical evidence of regenerative therapies, especially autologous stem cell approaches, for PPUI. We searched multiple databases for studies published between 2010 and 2024; eligible articles were clinical trials using stem cell therapies for PPUI, while non‑PPUI incontinence or non‑clinical outcome studies were excluded. Eight studies enrolling 311 patients were included: six used adipose‑derived stem cells (ADSCs) and two used muscle‑derived cells, administered via periurethral, transurethral or surgical implantation. Overall, 43.7% of patients achieved continence improvement, with efficacy ranging from 0% to 100% across studies; adverse events were mostly mild and self‑limiting. However, heterogeneity in study design, small sample sizes, inconsistent outcomes and short follow‑up restricted generalizability. Regenerative cell therapies, particularly ADSCs, are promising and well‑tolerated for PPUI. ADSCs are superior in easy harvest, scalability and multilineage differentiation. Although early data are encouraging, large‑scale, long‑term studies are required to confirm efficacy, optimize delivery and evaluate long‑term safety and durability.

Indexed as

Adipose-derived stem cellsPostprostatectomy urinary incontinenceRadical prostatectomyRegenerative medicineStem cell therapy

Identifiers

PMID42368667
PMCPMC13308912

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.