ArticleBJUI compass2024
Day-case artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: A comparative pilot study.
Article in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Same-day catheter-free discharge versus overnight observation after artificial urinary sphincter surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Erratum.BJUI compass · 2024Article
- Day-case artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: A comparative pilot study.BJUI compass · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2024
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Implantation of an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) to treat post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) has been traditionally offered with an overnight hospital stay. The aim of this prospective, comparative pilot study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of the AUS procedure in a day-case setting. Patients and methods: We included consecutive patients having primary or redo AUS surgery over an 18-month period. We excluded patients with previous urethral erosion of AUS, urethroplasty or high anaesthetic risk. All patients were offered day-case surgery. Patients who declined or could not have day-case surgery for logistical reasons had standard care with overnight stay and formed the control group for the study. Primary outcome was the proportion of successful same day-discharges in the day-case group. We also compared baseline characteristics, complications and continence at 1 year post surgery. Results: Twelve patients consented for day-case procedure, and 13 patients had standard overnight care. Mean age was 69.5 years (range 58-79). Twenty-one patients (84%) had primary AUS, whereas 4 (16%) had a redo procedure. There were no significant differences between the groups in baseline demographics. Median number of pads/24 h was 5 in the day-case group and 4 in the overnight group. Eight of 12 patients (66.7%) in the day-case group were successfully discharged on the same day. Failed discharges were due to anaesthetic recovery ( Conclusion: Day-case catheter-free discharge of AUS patients is feasible and safe in selected patients with comparable continence outcomes and complication rates to those with standard overnight stays.
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.