The Safety and Efficacy of a New Adjustable Single Incision Sling for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe the safety and efficacy of the Altis(®) Single Incision Sling System for the treatment of female stress urinary incontinence through 12 months. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study we collected a variety of safety and efficacy measures relevant to the assessment of urinary incontinence. The primary efficacy end point was improvement in 24-hour pad weight test. Other efficacy measures included the cough stress test, Urogenital Distress Inventory-Short Form, Incontinence Impact Questionnaire-Short Form, Patient Global Impression of Improvement and 3-day voiding diary. Safety was evaluated through assessment of device and procedure related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 116 surgical attempts 113 subjects were implanted with the Altis sling. Of these patients 103 had primary efficacy data at baseline and 6 months, and 101 had efficacy data at baseline and 12 months. Consequently 88 (85.4%) subjects at 6 months and 91 (90.1%) at 12 months achieved a 50% or greater reduction in pad weight. The cough stress test was negative for 95 (92.2%) subjects at 6 months and 91 (90.1%) at 12 months. A decrease in median leaks per day was observed at 6 months and improvements in all patient reported measures were observed through 12 months. A majority of subjects reported feeling much better or very much better at 6 and 12 months, respectively. There were no reports of mesh erosion or migration and no unanticipated adverse events through 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: The Altis sling appears to be safe and efficacious, and performs as intended in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence through 12 months.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".