Are male slings for post-prostatectomy incontinence a valid option?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Stress incontinence in men is still a common problem after surgical treatment of prostatic disease. This article reviews the techniques and results of recently described surgical slings available to treat male stress incontinence. RECENT FINDINGS: Medium-term follow-up (mean 3-4 years) of patients treated with bone-anchored slings has been recently published, suggesting a success rate (cured or improved) of 70-80%. Short-term follow-up (mean of 6-12 months) of transobturator retrourethral slings demonstrates a success rate of 62-83%. Novel sling designs include mechanisms to manipulate the tension postoperatively and inside-out transobturator trocar passage. Common complications associated with slings are acute urinary retention and perineal pain. Rare complications include urethral erosion and infection. Retropubic approaches are associated with a risk of bladder perforation. SUMMARY: Male slings are a valid option for treating male stress incontinence, and do offer several advantages over the artificial urinary sphincter. However, long-term data and multicenter series are needed in order to compare directly with the artificial urinary sphincter.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".