ArticleBJUI compass2026
Natural history of artificial urinary sphincter cuff erosion in males: Experience from two tertiary centres in the United Kingdom.
Article in BJUI compass, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to describe the natural history of urethral cuff erosion (UCE) following artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation, including the incidence of urethral stricture and fistula formation, and the outcomes of salvage AUS reimplantation, based on the experience of two UK tertiary centres. Material and methods: Data collected prospectively from 2016 to 2024 was analysed retrospectively. Demographics, characteristics and outcomes of AUS re-implantation were analysed. Results: A total of 273 AUS implantation were performed during the study period. Fifty had device explantation for UCE. Median age at explantation was 73 years. Median time from implantation to erosion was 32 months. About 12% had a history of neurogenic bladder and 58% pelvic irradiation. The most significant cause of acute erosion was traumatic catheterisation (44%).Following explantation, nine developed urethral stricture (18%), while five patients had urethro-cutaneous fistulae (10%). Twelve individuals underwent salvage AUS re-implantation with 6 (50%) requiring further explantation (50%) within 8 months. Of the remaining 38 patients, 17 continued with pad use alone and 21 underwent alternative conservative management including long-term catheterisation, convene drainage, penile clamp or urethral bulking. Four patients (8%) ultimately required urinary diversion, two following primary explantation and two following failed salvage reimplantation. Conclusion: Overall, 18% of males having AUS implantation had UCE and explantation of the device. The vast majority of them had a history of pelvic irradiation or catheterisation for stricture disease (76%). The main risk for UCE was traumatic catheterisation. About 18% of explanted cases developed urethral stricture and 10% urethra-cutaneous fistulae. Only 24% of these patients had attempted salvage AUS re-implantation, with one half resulting in further early UCE/infection and removal.
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.