Five Cases of Tape Erosion After Transobturator Surgery for Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Before introducing the transobturator tape into our practice we undertook 52 transobturator tape procedures. The transobturator tape procedures were undertaken with an "outside-in" approach, using nonwoven polypropylene mesh with average pore size of 50 mum. CASES: Five cases of vaginal erosions have been identified, 1 complicated by a groin abscess. All cases required further procedures to trim (n = 3), resect (n = 1) or remove (n = 1) the tape. One woman had a tension-free vaginal tape procedure. To date, 3 women remain incontinent. CONCLUSION: Possible reasons for the complications include 1) surgical inexperience (unlikely, given that we have undertaken more than 2000 tension-free vaginal tape procedures without similar complication rates); 2) inherent susceptibility of the "hammock" position of the transobturator tape; or 3) the nonwoven polypropylene tape with mesh size of 50 microm itself may predispose to erosion or abscess.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".