Artificial urinary sphincter and female stress urinary incontinence over the past 50 years: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: The aim of the present report was to provide an overview of the use of the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) in adult females with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) over the past 50 years. Methods: A literature search was conducted in December 2022 and January 2023 using the MEDLINE and Embase databases, screening for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective series and reviews on AUS. Only articles published in English or French were included. The search strategy involved a free text protocol and the narrative review reporting checklist was completed. Key Content and Findings: The AUS is a device used over the past 50 years for SUI caused by intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD). It has the theoretical ability to simulate the function of a biological urinary sphincter. Although the role of the AUS for females with ISD remains heterogeneous from one part of the world to the other, the existing literature demonstrates that AUS yields satisfactory functional outcomes in female SUI patients, comparable or better to what has been reported in male AUS series. Hence, the main barrier to its adoption has so far been the technical challenge of its implantation at the bladder neck. Regarding the results of AUS implantation in females, we included in this review 3 reviews, retrospective studies and 1 prospective study. In recent years, robotic techniques of female AUS implantation have spread significantly with promising outcomes including numerous reports suggesting that it may decrease its morbidity. In the near future, the development of electromechanical devices may further expand the role of AUS in the management of female SUI. Conclusions: While the use of AUS in female patients provides excellent functional outcomes, it has been limited to scarce centers. However, due to the rise of minimally invasive approaches, it has started spreading again over the past few years. The future of AUS is likely to be bright, fed by technological advances of the device and robotic surgical system, high level of evidence studies and joint efforts of the urological community to facilitate its diffusion across the world.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".