A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical and functional outcomes of artificial urinary sphincter implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the complications and results of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation in women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: A selective database search using keywords (1990-2019) was conducted to validate the effectiveness of the AUS in women. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilised. The meta-analysis included 964 women (15 studies) with persistent SUI. The Newcastle-Ottawa score was used to determine the quality of the evidence in each study. The success rate and complications associated with the AUS were analysed. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the published studies showed that complete continence was achieved at a mean rate of 79.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.2-86.6%) and a significant improvement was achieved in 15% (95% CI 10-25%). The mean (range) follow-up was 22 (6-204) months. The mean number of patients per study was 68. The mean (range) explantation rate was 13 (0-44)%. Vaginal erosion occurred in a mean (range) of 9 (0-27)% and mechanical complications in 13 (0-47)%. Infections accounted for 7% of the complications. The total mean (range) revision rate of the implanted AUS was 15.42 (0-44)%. The mean (range) size of the cuff used was 6.7 (5-10) cm. CONCLUSION: Our present analysis showed that implantation of an AUS in women with severe UI is an effective treatment option after failure of first-line therapy. However, the currently available study population is too small to draw firm conclusions. ABBREVIATIONS: AMS: American Medical Systems; AUS: artificial urinary sphincter; EAU: European Association of Urology; LE: Level of Evidence; PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; QoL: quality of life; SHELTER: Services and Health for Elderly in Long TERm care (study); SUI: (stress) urinary incontinence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".