Urology · 2025
Transcorporal Cuff-placement in Artificial Urinary Sphincter Surgery: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Domínguez Gutiérrez Ana, Hevia Palacios Manuel, López Curtis David Alonso, Muriel García Alfonso, Álvarez Díaz Noelia, Javier Burgos Revilla Francisco
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on survival and functional outcomes of the TC AUS.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42023393256) was conducted searching the Medline and Embase databases until January 2024. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for comparative non-randomized studies and the tool proposed by the EAU for single-arm studies.
RESULTS: Of 252 screened studies, 20 met the inclusion criteria (8 comparative and 12 non-comparative). Meta-analysis of comparative studies showed a significantly higher revision rate in TC AUS (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.16-7.75), with no significant difference in explantation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.27-7.24). Continence and QoL outcomes appeared comparable between both approaches. Notably, the TC AUS was associated with a significantly lower infection (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.95) and erosion rates (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.81). Subgroup analysis in the high-risk urethra population demonstrated similar trends.
CONCLUSION: TC AUS shows higher revision rates both in the general and high-risk populations. However, these rates are not associated with a higher explantation, which suggests that the TC may be a viable option in complex situations. Additionally, no greater erosion has been observed, even in patients with risk factors.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42023393256) was conducted searching the Medline and Embase databases until January 2024. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I for comparative non-randomized studies and the tool proposed by the EAU for single-arm studies.
RESULTS: Of 252 screened studies, 20 met the inclusion criteria (8 comparative and 12 non-comparative). Meta-analysis of comparative studies showed a significantly higher revision rate in TC AUS (OR 2.99, 95% CI 1.16-7.75), with no significant difference in explantation (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.27-7.24). Continence and QoL outcomes appeared comparable between both approaches. Notably, the TC AUS was associated with a significantly lower infection (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.95) and erosion rates (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.15-0.81). Subgroup analysis in the high-risk urethra population demonstrated similar trends.
CONCLUSION: TC AUS shows higher revision rates both in the general and high-risk populations. However, these rates are not associated with a higher explantation, which suggests that the TC may be a viable option in complex situations. Additionally, no greater erosion has been observed, even in patients with risk factors.