Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Is an artificial urinary sphincter more effective than a urethral bulking agent for postprostatectomy incontinence?

  • Practice Point
  • Published:

From Nature Clinical Practice Urology

View current issue Sign up to alerts

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Gomes CM et al. (2000) Artificial urinary sphincter for post-prostatectomy incontinence: impact of prior collagen injection on cost and clinical outcome. J Urol 163: 87–90

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brown JA et al. (1998) Postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: a comparison of the cost of conservative versus surgical management. Urology 51: 715–720

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Winters JC and Appell RA (1996) Collagen injection therapy in the treatment of urinary incontinence. Tech Urol 2: 59–64

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The synopsis was written by Chloe Harman, Associate Editor, Nature Clinical Practice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel S Elliott.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Glossary

QOL

Quality of life

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Elliott, D. Is an artificial urinary sphincter more effective than a urethral bulking agent for postprostatectomy incontinence?. Nat Rev Urol 2, 220–221 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0181

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro0181

  • Springer Nature Limited

Navigation