1160 CORRELATION BETWEEN PRE-IMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS AND CAUSES OF SACRAL NEUROSTIMULATOR EXPLANTATION: 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyUrodynamics/Incontinence/Female Urology: Incontinence - Evaluation & Therapy1 Apr 20111160 CORRELATION BETWEEN PRE-IMPLANTATION DIAGNOSIS AND CAUSES OF SACRAL NEUROSTIMULATOR EXPLANTATION: 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE Yahya Ghazwani, Mohamed Elkelini, and Magdy Hassouna Yahya GhazwaniYahya Ghazwani Toronto, Canada , Mohamed ElkeliniMohamed Elkelini Toronto, Canada , and Magdy HassounaMagdy Hassouna Toronto, Canada View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.770AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Sacral neuromodulation has gained its popularity as an effective therapy for various voiding dysfunctions refractory to conservative and medical therapy.InterStim® is approved by FDA for treating urgency-incontinence, urgency/frequency syndrome and non-obstructive urinary retention. Sacral neuromodulation has also showed favorable results in relieving urinary symptoms and pelvic pain associated with Bladder Pain Syndrome. Despite all modifications in the surgical technique and implanted leads, explantation is still encountered in 5–15% of implanted InterStim® therapy. Our aim was to determine the association between indications of the InterStim® therapy and causes for explantation after long term follow-up. METHODS A retrospective chart review of patients who underwent permanent sacral implantation from 2000–2009 was carried out. All patients who had their InterStim® explanted were included. Ages, gender, pre-implantation diagnosis, duration of symptoms, duration of stimulation, and reason for explantation were retrieved. The causes of explantation included loss of efficacy and pain (at the site of IPG, or ipsilateral lower limb), infection, trauma and as precautions for MRI. RESULTS 167 patients were permanently implanted, 142 (85%) females and 25 (15%) males. Indications of implantation were: Overactive Bladder (OAB) 82 (49%) patients, 46 (28%) patients with urinary retention (UR), and 39 (23%) patients with Bladder Pain Syndrome (BPS). In total, 37 (22%) patients were explanted. Table 1 shows the reasons for explantation Loss of efficacy (59%) followed by pain (27%) represented the predominant causes of explantation. Average duration of stimulation in explanted patients was 4.5 ± 2.6 yrs. Patients who were explanted due to loss of efficacy had longer duration of stimulation when compared to patients who were explanted due to pain, (5.32± 2.5) Vs (3.1±0.1) yrs, p =0.011. BPS as an indication for Sacral neuromodulation was significantly correlated with pain as a cause of explantation (r=0.41, p=0.012). CONCLUSIONS In our cohort, explantation rate of sacral neurostimulator was 20% caused predominantly by loss of efficacy. We however found that explantation due to pain was associated with BPS. © 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 185Issue 4SApril 2011Page: e465-e466 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2011 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Yahya Ghazwani Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Mohamed Elkelini Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Magdy Hassouna Toronto, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».