ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2023
The impact of cognitive impairment in urologic implants: a narrative review.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: With the general population aging and thus more patients developing bothersome erectile dysfunction, stress urinary incontinence and overactive bladder, there will likely be a higher demand for three common interactive implants in urology, the penile prosthesis, artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) and sacral neuromodulation (SNM). Further, the prevalence of mild and major neurocognitive disorders (also known as mild cognitive impairment and dementia, respectively) is expected to increase. While the aforementioned urologic implants have excellent short and long term outcomes, there are also known device issues such as malfunction or misuse that may require surgical removal and/or revision. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the association of cognitive impairment and urologic implants. Methods: We performed a search on PubMed between the years 1975-2023 for English language articles that reported on any type or severity of cognitive impairment and its association with penile prosthesis, AUS and/or SNM. While peer-reviewed published manuscripts were prioritized, abstracts that fit our search criteria were also included. Key Content and Findings: Data assessing outcomes of patients with cognitive impairment who undergo placement of a urologic implant are limited. There is an association between AUS failure or misuse with cognitive impairment. SNM is efficacious in this population in the short term. In patients who develop dementia, an inflatable penile prosthesis can be deflated via in-office needle puncture and an AUS can be deactivated. The Memory Alteration Test, Quick Screen for Mild Cognitive Impairment and the Saint Louis University Mental Status Examination are relatively quick screening tests with good sensitivity and specificity for mild cognitive impairment. Conclusions: While data on the association between urologic implants and cognitive impairment are sparse, there are tools that urologists can use to screen patients for cognitive impairment. With screening, urologists can provide appropriate preoperative counseling (including recommending against implantation) and can provide closer postoperative monitoring. Further study is required to assess which patients should be excluded from device implantation and how to properly assess for cognitive impairment in a manner that is both beneficial for the patient and convenient and efficient for a urologist.
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.