84 One year results of a French, multicentre, prospective clinical study of act® (adjustable continence therapy) for the treatment of female of stress urinary incontinence due to intrinsic sphincter deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This Prospective, multicentre clinical investigation sought to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the adjustable balloons ACT® for treatment of female Stress Urinary Incontinence SUI with ISD. Materials and Methods: The ACT® implant consists of a two‐lumen conduit of variable length with an expandable silicone balloon (0.5–8 cc) on the proximal end and a distal subcutaneous titanium port. Two balloons were placed periurethrally at the bladder neck. Continence rate (no leakage during direct visual stress test with 250 ml placed in the bladder), improvement, failures, quality of life (I‐QoL) and morbidity were assessed. Results: Sixty‐seven patients (62 ± 9.8‐years‐old) were implanted in France during 75 procedures (8 revisions). Average follow‐up was 12 months. At baseline, urethral closure pressure was 22.5 ± 10.8 cm H 2 Oand 39 patients (58%) had previously undergone at least one surgery for SUI. Continence increased from 0% at baseline to 57% at1 year and I‐QoL improved from 39.4 ± 19 at baseline to 63.7 ± 23.3 at one year. Balloon adjustment was required in 64% of patients. Complications included erosion (11%), spontaneously resolved retention (2%) and infection (4%). Conclusion: ACT® offers a viable alternative for the treatment of SUI in female with ISD. The implantation is a minimally invasive and efficient procedure and stable over time therapy for patients with severe SUI with ISD. Implantation can be done under local anaesthesia. The positioning of ACT® treatment versus artificial urinary sphincter still needs to be determined.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".