ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2026
The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in International journal of impotence research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comment on: The penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal approach for artificial urinary sphincter implantation: a retrospective cohort study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Comment on: Application of gelatin sponge (Gelfoam®) as a hemostatic agent in inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The artificial urinary sphincter is the standard surgical treatment for persistent stress urinary incontinence in male patients when conservative methods fail, with the perineal approach being the most commonly used. However, the penoscrotal approach, which requires only a single incision, offers advantages such as shorter operation times and ease of execution, though concerns about lower dry rates and higher complication risks remain. This retrospective cohort study analyzed outcomes of 156 patients who underwent artificial urinary sphincter implantation via the penoscrotal approach between 2014 and 2024, excluding revision and double prosthesis cases. The mean patient age was 72.5 ± 6.8 years, a median cuff size of 4 cm (3.5-6), a mean operation time of 28.3 ± 8.7 min and a median follow-up of 27.6 (2.6-109.7) months. The most common immediate postoperative complication was urinary retention (5.8%). At six months, 65.4% of patients were completely dry, and 82.7% were socially continent. Revision was required in 32.1% of cases, aligning with literature-reported rates. This study suggests that the penoscrotal approach is a viable alternative to the perineal method, offering potential benefits in operative efficiency while maintaining comparable outcomes to the classic perineal approach.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40968229What 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.