Augmentation vs No Augmentation for Neurogenic Bladder Incontinence: No Augmentation

Abstract

No AccessJournal of UrologyOpposing View1 May 2013Augmentation vs No Augmentation for Neurogenic Bladder Incontinence: No Augmentation Warren T. Snodgrass Warren T. SnodgrassWarren T. Snodgrass More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.068AboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail "Augmentation vs No Augmentation for Neurogenic Bladder Incontinence: No Augmentation." The Journal of Urology, 189(5), pp. 1628–1629 References 1 : Artificial urinary sphincter in the treatment of urinary incontinence: preoperative urodynamics do not predict the need for future bladder augmentation. J Urol1998; 160: 1093. Link, Google Scholar 2 : Is long-term bladder deterioration inevitable following successful isolated bladder outlet procedures in children with neuropathic bladder dysfunction?. J Urol2008; 179: 1991. Link, Google Scholar 3 : Use of the fascial sling for neurogenic incontinence: lessons learned. J Urol1993; 150: 683. Link, Google Scholar 4 : Biological response of bladders rendered continent by insertion of artificial sphincter. J Urol1987; 138: 1116. Link, Google Scholar 5 : A single-centre long-term outcome analysis of artificial urinary sphincter placement in children. BJU Int2002; 89: 82. Google Scholar Department of Urology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 5May 2013Page: 1628-1629 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Warren T. Snodgrass More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...