Long‐term patient satisfaction following cadaveric pubovaginal sling incontinence surgery using the UDI and IIQ‐7 questionnaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The goal of any incontinence surgery is overall long-term patient satisfaction. The purpose of our study was to assess long-term patient satisfaction following cadaveric fascia lata pubovaginal sling surgery using the urogenital distress inventory (UDI) and the short form of the incontinence impact questionnaire (IIQ-7). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 47 patients who underwent pubovaginal sling incontinence surgery with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were sent by mail the UDI (total score = 300) and the IIQ-7 (total score = 100). Thirty-seven responses (78.7%) were obtained, with a mean follow-up of 3.8 years (range 2.0-6.2). RESULTS: Of the 37 patients who responded, the mean UDI score was 75.8 and the mean IIQ-7 score was 21.4. There was no difference in the mean IIQ-7 score for patients with more than 4 years follow-up as compared to the entire group (28.8, P = 0.22). In contrast, the mean UDI score for patients with more than 4 years follow-up was greater compared to the entire group (99.1, P = 0.04). UDI subscale analysis revealed that patients mainly complained of both irritative and stress symptoms as opposed to obstructive/discomfort symptoms (P < 0.01). Patients with pre-operative mixed incontinence had greater mean UDI and IIQ-7 scores compared to patients with pre-operative pure stress incontinence (96.7 vs. 58.0, P = 0.04; 32.5 vs. 11.9, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Overall long-term scores assessing quality of life (IIQ-7) were good and those assessing symptom distress (UDI) were satisfactory following pubovaginal sling surgery. Patients with pre-operative mixed incontinence are at greatest risk for post-operative dissatisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".