Management of recurrent post-prostatectomy incontinence after previous failed retrourethral male slings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to establish the feasibility of combining 2 minimally invasive procedures in patients with failed primary treatment (male sling) in post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) patients. METHODS: From January 2007 to July 2008, 40 men with PPI were implanted with a suburethral tape (2 patients with Seratim, 3 with I-Stop and 35 with Advance). The median preoperative pad count was 4 (range 2-10). Prior to sling placement, 6 patients had undergone ProACT implantation. Of these, 4 patients required explantation due to balloon migration and 2 patients had their balloons kept in situ, with the balloons deflated. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were socially continent at this time. Fifteen patients (37.5%) did not improve or their improvement was not significant. These patients had a preoperative pad count between 7 and 10. Two of these patients had prostate adjustable continence therapy (ProACT) systems still in place. By gradually filling the balloons to 3 mL, both of these patients achieved complete continence, which was maintained at a mean follow-up of 8.5 months. Three patients with prior pelvic irradiation received an artificial urinary sphincter and achieved continence at mean follow-up of 8.3 months. The remaining 10 patients received a ProACT system in addition to the already implanted sling. After appropriate healing and filling of the balloons (average balloon volume 5 mL), all 10 patients reached complete continence; they were pad-free at a mean follow-up of 6 months (range 3-9). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ProACT and a suburethral tape was demonstrated to be a possible treatment option in recurrent or persistent PPI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".