ReviewCurrent urology reports2020
Current Use of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Adult Females.
Review in Current urology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical characterization and constitutive law of porcine urethral tissues: a hyperelastic fiber model based on a physical approach.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2025Article
- Review
- Artificial urinary sphincter and female stress urinary incontinence over the past 50 years: a narrative review.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Review
- Neurological sphincter deficiency: is there a place for artificial urinary sphincter?World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Robotic-assisted artificial urinary sphincter revisions for women suffering from non-neurogenic stress incontinence: a single center experience.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Article
- Comparison of urethral sling surgery and non-ablative vaginal Erbium:YAG laser treatment in 327 patients with stress urinary incontinence: a case-matching analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2022Article
- 5-Year results of robotic female AUS implantation: our single-center series of 42 patients.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThe aim of the present report was to review the recent evidences regarding the use of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in adult females. RECENT
findingsWhile the excellent functional outcomes of AUS in female patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) have been reported for decades, its use has remained confidential in most countries likely due to its challenging implantation and inherent morbidity. Over the past few years, laparoscopic and, more recently, robotic techniques of AUS implantation in female patients have been described with promising perioperative outcomes. As a result, the use of AUS has increased in several countries. The indications are mostly recurrent or persistent SUI after previous anti-incontinence procedures and neurogenic SUI. Owing to its unique potential to restore continence while maintaining low outlet resistance during the voiding phase, AUS may be of special interest in female patients with detrusor underactivity. High level of evidence data from trials which are underway, along with developments in robotic surgery and technological refinements of the device, may well, almost 50 years after its introduction, give to the AUS its momentum as a major contributor in the female SUI armamentarium. While the use of AUS in female patients has been restricted to some countries and a few high-volume centers, it has started spreading again over the past few years, thanks to the rise of minimally invasive approaches which facilitate its implantation, and this is yielding promising outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.