Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33098485›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2020

Current Use of the Artificial Urinary Sphincter in Adult Females.

Benoit Peyronnet, Tamsin Greenwell, Gary Gray, Rose Khavari, Nikesh Thiruchelvam, Grégoire Capon, Jeremy Ockrim, Luis Lopez-Fando, Jason Gilleran, Georges Fournier and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 11 institutions in 7 countries.

Benoit PeyronnetDepartment of Urology, University of Rennes, Rennes, France. peyronnetbenoit@hotmail.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8157-2825
Tamsin GreenwellDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Gary GrayDepartment of Urology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Rose KhavariDepartment of Urology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Nikesh ThiruchelvamDepartment of Urology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Grégoire CaponDepartment of Urology, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Jeremy OckrimDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospital, London, UK.
Luis Lopez-FandoDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Ramon y Cajal, Madrid, Spain.
Jason GilleranDepartment of Urology, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, MI, USA.
Georges FournierDepartment of Urology, University of Brest, Brest, France.
Gommert A Van KoeveringeDepartment of Urology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Frank Van Der AaUniversity Hospitals, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
University College Hospital · GBAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBBeaumont Hospital, Royal Oak · USHôpital Pontchaillou · FRHospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal · ESKU Leuven · BEMaastricht University Medical Centre · NLMethodist Hospital · USUniversité de Bordeaux · FRUniversité de Bretagne Occidentale · FRUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Prosthesis ImplantationUrinary Sphincter, ArtificialAdultFemaleHumansLaparoscopyRobotic Surgical ProceduresTreatment OutcomeUrinary Incontinence, StressFemaleRoboticsUrinary incontinence, stressUrinary sphincter, artificial

Identifiers

PMID33098485
OpenAlexW3093737445

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.