Prospective multicenter clinical trial of Uretex Sup for surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate in a prospective multicenter study the efficacy and safety of the suburethral support Uretex (Sofradim, Trevoux, France) delivered by a suprapubic approach in the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: Between March 2002 and March 2003, 57 patients were treated for stress urinary incontinence with Uretex. Preoperative evaluation included urodynamic examination and questionnaires (symptoms and quality of life, Contilife). Forty patients had pure stress urinary incontinence and 17 mixed urinary incontinence. No associated procedure was performed. The objective cure rate was evaluated by clinical examination and pad-test, and the subjective cure rate was assessed through questionnaires at 1, 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 13 months (range 11-24 months). During follow up, chronic urinary retention requiring a tape section occurred in one patient, and in another patient a delay of vaginal healing was followed by a sling exposure and resection at 4 months. No infection or urethral erosion was reported. The objective cure rate was 96.2%, and the subjective cure rate was 79.2%; four patients reported low leakage on stress and nine patients complained of urge incontinence (four de novo and five persistent). CONCLUSION: The suprapubic Uretex Sup procedure is a safe and effective treatment for women with stress urinary incontinence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".