FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2033784087> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2033784087 endingPage "1916" @default.
• W2033784087 startingPage "1912" @default.
• W2033784087 abstract "No AccessJournal of UrologyAdult Urology1 May 2008Long-Term Durability and Functional Outcomes Among Patients With Artificial Urinary Sphincters: A 10-Year Retrospective Review From the University of Michigan Simon P. Kim, Zubair Sarmast, Stephanie Daignault, Gary J. Faerber, Edward J. McGuire, and Jerilyn M. Latini Simon P. KimSimon P. Kim Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author , Zubair SarmastZubair Sarmast Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author , Stephanie DaignaultStephanie Daignault Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author , Gary J. FaerberGary J. Faerber Financial interest and/or other relationship with Olympus, Bard Urologic Inc. and Pfizer. More articles by this author , Edward J. McGuireEdward J. McGuire Financial interest and/or other relationship with Pfizer, Novartis, Astellas, Carbon Medical technologies, Pharmacia and Ortho-McNeil. More articles by this author , and Jerilyn M. LatiniJerilyn M. Latini Financial interest and/or other relationship with American Medical Systems Inc, Pfizer Inc. and Tengion Inc. More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.048AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract Purpose: The artificial urinary sphincter continues to be one of the most effective and commonly used surgical treatments for severe urinary incontinence. The long-term durability and functional outcome remains unclear. This study sought to report the artificial urinary sphincter complication rates, associated risk factors with complications, and long-term quality of life and durability. Materials and Methods: This single institution study reports the outcomes of 124 consecutive index cases of artificial urinary sphincter from 1996 to 2006 for complications (infection, erosion, and mechanical failure). Bivariate statistics and multivariable logistic models were used to identify patient and artificial urinary sphincter characteristics associated with complications. Functional outcomes and long-term durability were assessed using a cross sectional analysis of a validated health related quality of life survey and a product limit estimates, respectively. Results: Among the 124 male patients median followup was 6.8 years. The overall complication rate for patients undergoing an artificial urinary sphincter was 37.0%, with mechanical failure the most common cause (29), followed by erosion (10) and then infection (7). Significant differences between complications and specific patient and artificial urinary sphincter characteristics risk factors were not found. Functional outcomes appeared stable with similar mild-moderate urinary incontinence severity and 0 to 1 daily pad use at intervals of 0 to 4 years, 4 to 8 years and more than 8 years. Long-term durability was notable with 36% having complications (requiring surgical revision or removal) within 10 years and most events occurring within the first 48 months. Conclusions: Long-term durability and functional outcomes are achievable for the AMS 800, but there are appreciable complication rates for erosion, mechanical failure and infection in the first 48 months from implantation. References 1 : Quality of life and continence assessment of the artificial urinary sphincter in men with minimum 3.5 years of followup. J Urol1997; 158: 435. Link, Google Scholar 2 : The current role of the artificial urinary sphincter for the treatment of urinary incontinence. J Urol2005; 174: 418. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Current use of artificial urinary sphincters in the United States. J Urol2007; 178: 578. Link, Google Scholar 4 : The prevalence of urinary incontinence among community dwelling adult women: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Urol2006; 175: 601. Link, Google Scholar 5 : The prevalence of urinary incontinence among community dwelling men: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination survey. J Urol2006; 176: 2103. Link, Google Scholar 6 : Costs of urinary incontinence and overactive bladder in the United States: a comparative study. Urology2004; 63: 461. Google Scholar 7 : Urinary incontinence: economic burden and new choices in pharmaceutical treatment. Adv Ther2006; 23: 556. Google Scholar 8 : The impact of health-related quality of life of stress, urge and mixed urinary incontinence. BJU Int2003; 92: 731. Google Scholar 9 : Health-related quality of life among adults with symptoms of overactive bladder: results from a U.S. community-based survey. Urology2001; 57: 1044. Google Scholar 10 : Artificial urinary sphincter for post prostatectomy urinary incontinence: long-term subjective results. J Urol2001; 166: 1755. Link, Google Scholar 11 : A new artificial urinary sphincter with conditional occlusion for stress urinary incontinence: preliminary clinical results. Eur Urol2006; 50: 574. Google Scholar 12 : Long-term continence and patient satisfaction after urinary sphincter implantation after prostatectomy. J Urol2001; 166: 547. Link, Google Scholar 13 : Long-term efficacy of AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter in male patients with urodynamic stress incontinence due to spinal cord lesion. Spinal Cord2006; 44: 297. Google Scholar 14 : Artificial urinary sphincter implantation in the irradiated patients: safety, efficacy and satisfaction. BJU Int2002; 89: 364. Google Scholar 15 : Mayo Clinic long-term analysis of the functional durability of the AMS 800 artificial urinary sphincter: a review of 323 cases. J Urol1998; 159: 1206. Google Scholar 16 : The fate of the “modern” artificial urinary sphincter with a follow-up of more than 10 years. Br J Urol1979; 79: 713. Google Scholar 17 : Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence in men who had prior radiotherapy: a risk and outcome analysis. J Urol2002; 167: 591. Google Scholar 18 : Outcomes following erosions of the artificial urinary sphincter. J Urol2006; 175: 2186. Link, Google Scholar 19 : The Incontinence Symptom Index (ISI): a novel and practical symptom score for the evaluation of urinary incontinence severity. J Urol2003; 169: 33. abstract 128.. Google Scholar Department of Urology, The University of Michigan Health System and Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan© 2008 by American Urological AssociationFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byZiegelmann M, Linder B, Avant R and Elliott D (2019) Bacterial Cultures at the Time of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision Surgery in Clinically Uninfected Devices: A Contemporary SeriesJournal of Urology, VOL. 201, NO. 6, (1152-1157), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2019.Doiron R, Saavedra A, Haines T, Nadeau G, Tu L, Morisset J, Steele S, Valiquette L, Elterman D, Maciejewski C and Rourke K (2019) Canadian Experience with the Adjustable Transobturator Male System for Post-Prostatectomy Incontinence: A Multicenter StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 202, NO. 5, (1022-1028), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2019.Wingate J, Erickson B, Murphy G, Smith T, Breyer B and Voelzke B (2018) Multicenter Analysis of Patient Reported Outcomes Following Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement for Male Stress Urinary IncontinenceJournal of Urology, VOL. 199, NO. 3, (785-790), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2018.Radomski S, Ruzhynsky V, Wallis C and Herschorn S (2018) Complications and Interventions in Patients with an Artificial Urinary Sphincter: Long-Term ResultsJournal of Urology, VOL. 200, NO. 5, (1093-1098), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018.Viers B, VanDyke M, Pagliara T, Shakir N, Scott J and Morey A (2017) Improving Male Sling Selectivity and Outcomes—A Potential Role for Physical Demonstration of Stress Urinary Incontinence Severity?Urology Practice, VOL. 5, NO. 6, (458-465), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2018.Yafi F, DeLay K, Stewart C, Chiang J, Sangkum P and Hellstrom W (2016) Device Survival after Primary Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Male Stress Urinary IncontinenceJournal of Urology, VOL. 197, NO. 3 Part 1, (759-765), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2017.Griebling T (2018) Re: Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement in OctogenariansJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 3, (460-463), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2017.Wein A (2018) Re: A Systematic Approach to the Evaluation and Management of the Failed Artificial Urinary SphincterJournal of Urology, VOL. 198, NO. 6, (1216-1216), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2017.Linder B, Viers B, Ziegelmann M, Rivera M, Rangel L and Elliott D (2018) Artificial Urinary Sphincter Mechanical Failures—Is it Better to Replace the Entire Device or Just the Malfunctioning Component?Journal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 5, (1523-1528), Online publication date: 1-May-2016.Wein A (2018) Re: Long-Term Functional Outcomes after Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation in Men with Stress Urinary IncontinenceJournal of Urology, VOL. 195, NO. 5, (1540-1541), Online publication date: 1-May-2016.Viers B, Linder B, Rivera M, Rangel L, Ziegelmann M and Elliott D (2018) Long-Term Quality of Life and Functional Outcomes among Primary and Secondary Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantations in Men with Stress Urinary IncontinenceJournal of Urology, VOL. 196, NO. 3, (838-843), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2016.Simhan J, Morey A, Singla N, Tausch T, Scott J, Lemack G and Roehrborn C (2018) 3.5 cm Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Erosion Occurs Predominantly in Irradiated PatientsJournal of Urology, VOL. 193, NO. 2, (593-597), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2015.Singla N, Siegel J, Simhan J, Tausch T, Klein A, Thoreson G and Morey A (2018) Does Pressure Regulating Balloon Location Make a Difference in Functional Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter?Journal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 1, (202-206), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2015.Linder B, Piotrowski J, Ziegelmann M, Rivera M, Rangel L and Elliott D (2018) Perioperative Complications following Artificial Urinary Sphincter PlacementJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 3, (716-720), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2015.Ajay D, Zhang H, Gupta S, Selph J, Belsante M, Lentz A, Webster G and Peterson A (2018) The Artificial Urinary Sphincter is Superior to a Secondary Transobturator Male Sling in Cases of a Primary Sling FailureJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 4, (1038-1042), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015.Selph J, Belsante M, Gupta S, Ajay D, Lentz A, Webster G, Le N and Peterson A (2018) The Ohmmeter Identifies the Site of Fluid Leakage during Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision SurgeryJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 4, (1043-1048), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2015.Mock S, Dmochowski R, Brown E, Reynolds W, Kaufman M and Milam D (2018) The Impact of Urethral Risk Factors on Transcorporeal Artificial Urinary Sphincter Erosion Rates and Device SurvivalJournal of Urology, VOL. 194, NO. 6, (1692-1696), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2015.Rothschild J, Chang Kit L, Seltz L, Wang L, Kaufman M, Dmochowski R and Milam D (2018) Difference between Urethral Circumference and Artificial Urinary Sphincter Cuff Size, and its Effect on Postoperative IncontinenceJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 1, (138-142), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2014.Linder B, de Cogain M and Elliott D (2018) Long-Term Device Outcomes of Artificial Urinary Sphincter Reimplantation Following Prior Explantation for Erosion or InfectionJournal of Urology, VOL. 191, NO. 3, (734-738), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2014.Simhan J, Morey A, Zhao L, Tausch T, Scott J, Hudak S and Mazzarella B (2018) Decreasing Need for Artificial Urinary Sphincter Revision Surgery by Precise Cuff Sizing in Men with Spongiosal AtrophyJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 3, (798-803), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2014.McGeady J, McAninch J, Truesdale M, Blaschko S, Kenfield S and Breyer B (2018) Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement in Compromised Urethras and Survival: A Comparison of Virgin, Radiated and Reoperative CasesJournal of Urology, VOL. 192, NO. 6, (1756-1761), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2014.Kim P, Pinheiro L, Atoria C, Eastham J, Sandhu J and Elkin E (2018) Trends in the Use of Incontinence Procedures After Radical Prostatectomy: A Population Based AnalysisJournal of Urology, VOL. 189, NO. 2, (602-608), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2013.Comiter C, Nitti V, Elliot C and Rhee E (2018) A New Quadratic Sling for Male Stress Incontinence: Retrograde Leak Point Pressure as a Measure of Urethral ResistanceJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 2, (563-568), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2012.Lentz A, Peterson A and Webster G (2018) Outcomes Following Artificial Sphincter Implantation After Prior Unsuccessful Male SlingJournal of Urology, VOL. 187, NO. 6, (2149-2153), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2012.Bochove-Overgaauw D and Schrier B (2018) An Adjustable Sling for the Treatment of All Degrees of Male Stress Urinary Incontinence: Retrospective Evaluation of Efficacy and Complications After a Minimal Followup of 14 MonthsJournal of Urology, VOL. 185, NO. 4, (1363-1368), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2011.Rouprêt M, Misraï V, Gosseine P, Bart S, Cour F and Chartier-Kastler E (2018) Management of Stress Urinary Incontinence Following Prostate Surgery With Minimally Invasive Adjustable Continence Balloon Implants: Functional Results From a Single Center Prospective StudyJournal of Urology, VOL. 186, NO. 1, (198-203), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2011.Cornel E, Elzevier H and Putter H (2018) Can Advance Transobturator Sling Suspension Cure Male Urinary Postoperative Stress Incontinence?Journal of Urology, VOL. 183, NO. 4, (1459-1463), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2010.Lee R, Te A, Kaplan S and Sandhu J (2018) Temporal Trends in Adoption of and Indications for the Artificial Urinary SphincterJournal of Urology, VOL. 181, NO. 6, (2622-2627), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2009. Volume 179Issue 5May 2008Page: 1912-1916 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2008 by American Urological AssociationKeywordsquality of lifeurinary sphinctertreatment outcomeartificialMetricsAuthor Information Simon P. Kim Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Zubair Sarmast Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Stephanie Daignault Nothing to disclose. More articles by this author Gary J. Faerber Financial interest and/or other relationship with Olympus, Bard Urologic Inc. and Pfizer. More articles by this author Edward J. McGuire Financial interest and/or other relationship with Pfizer, Novartis, Astellas, Carbon Medical technologies, Pharmacia and Ortho-McNeil. More articles by this author Jerilyn M. Latini Financial interest and/or other relationship with American Medical Systems Inc, Pfizer Inc. and Tengion Inc. More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2033784087 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2033784087 creator A5008790314 @default.
• W2033784087 creator A5019390129 @default.
• W2033784087 creator A5030570549 @default.
• W2033784087 creator A5047998272 @default.
• W2033784087 creator A5053084361 @default.
• W2033784087 creator A5062341460 @default.
• W2033784087 date "2008-05-01" @default.
• W2033784087 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2033784087 title "Long-Term Durability and Functional Outcomes Among Patients With Artificial Urinary Sphincters: A 10-Year Retrospective Review From the University of Michigan" @default.
• W2033784087 cites W1597047387 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W1608222723 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W1963860814 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W1969630236 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W1976731534 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W1988028456 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2002534898 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2002605390 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2028243567 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2031883127 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2037594098 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2052733904 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2081350087 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2087092037 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2088191311 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2094970779 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W2123804835 @default.
• W2033784087 cites W3173439127 @default.
• W2033784087 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.01.048" @default.
• W2033784087 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18353376" @default.
• W2033784087 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2033784087 type Work @default.
• W2033784087 sameAs 2033784087 @default.
• W2033784087 citedByCount "240" @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872012 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872013 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872014 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872015 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872016 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872017 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872018 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872019 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872020 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872021 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872022 @default.
• W2033784087 countsByYear W20337840872023 @default.
• W2033784087 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2033784087 hasAuthorship W2033784087A5008790314 @default.
• W2033784087 hasAuthorship W2033784087A5019390129 @default.
• W2033784087 hasAuthorship W2033784087A5030570549 @default.
• W2033784087 hasAuthorship W2033784087A5047998272 @default.
• W2033784087 hasAuthorship W2033784087A5053084361 @default.
• W2033784087 hasAuthorship W2033784087A5062341460 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C167135981 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C2778531004 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C2779656439 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C61797465 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConcept C77411442 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C121332964 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C126322002 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C141071460 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C167135981 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C2778531004 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C2779656439 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C61797465 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C62520636 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C71924100 @default.
• W2033784087 hasConceptScore W2033784087C77411442 @default.
• W2033784087 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2033784087 hasLocation W20337840871 @default.
• W2033784087 hasLocation W20337840872 @default.
• W2033784087 hasOpenAccess W2033784087 @default.
• W2033784087 hasPrimaryLocation W20337840871 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W1586374228 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2045240138 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2033784087 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2033784087 hasVolume "179" @default.
• W2033784087 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2033784087 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2033784087 magId "2033784087" @default.
• W2033784087 workType "article" @default.