Urology · 2026
Association of Prior Urethroplasty and Technique With Outcomes After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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.
Deameh Mohammad Ghassab, Mohamed Hamza, Abdelshafi Abdelrahman, Mohamed Tarek, Ramez Mohamed
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of prior urethroplasty and transecting versus non-transecting urethroplasty techniques on outcomes following artificial urinary sphincter implantation METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted from inception through January 2026. It included comparative studies of artificial urinary sphincter outcomes in patients with or without prior urethroplasty, and of transecting and non-transecting urethroplasty techniques. Primary outcomes were urethral erosion and device explantation; secondary outcomes included continence, mechanical failure, and postoperative infection.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 533 patients were analyzed. Prior urethroplasty was associated with a significantly higher risk of device explantation compare to no history of urethroplasty (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.08-3.89), confirmed by pooled hazard ratio analysis (HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.45-6.02), but showed no statistically significant increase in erosion, infection, or mechanical failure. Transecting urethroplasty was associated with significantly higher risks of both erosion (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.30-4.21) and explantation (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.59-3.57), compared to non-transecting urethroplasty with consistent findings on time-to-event analysis.
CONCLUSION: Prior urethroplasty, especially with transecting techniques, links to higher AUS erosion and explantation rates. Continence outcomes stay favorable, but these findings are observational and need prospective studies to clarify how urethroplasty methods affect AUS outcomes.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 533 patients were analyzed. Prior urethroplasty was associated with a significantly higher risk of device explantation compare to no history of urethroplasty (RR 2.05, 95% CI 1.08-3.89), confirmed by pooled hazard ratio analysis (HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.45-6.02), but showed no statistically significant increase in erosion, infection, or mechanical failure. Transecting urethroplasty was associated with significantly higher risks of both erosion (RR 2.34, 95% CI 1.30-4.21) and explantation (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.59-3.57), compared to non-transecting urethroplasty with consistent findings on time-to-event analysis.
CONCLUSION: Prior urethroplasty, especially with transecting techniques, links to higher AUS erosion and explantation rates. Continence outcomes stay favorable, but these findings are observational and need prospective studies to clarify how urethroplasty methods affect AUS outcomes.