Assessment of long-term patient satisfaction after vesical neck suspension for stress urinary incontinence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term efficacy of the transvaginal vesical neck suspension in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in a general uro-gynecology practice. METHODS: The charts of all patients (n = 168) treated at our hospital with a transvaginal technique for vesical neck suspension, over a 5 year period (1990-1995) were reviewed. Only cases with pure, uncomplicated incontinence secondary to increased intra-abdominal pressure as determined by history and physical examination, urodynamics and cystoscopy were considered. The short term (1 month) and long term (> 5 years) results were collated and analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were lost for follow-up. The assessment of results was, therefore based on the remaining 117 women (69.6%). The efficacy of the operation (> 90% regain continence or were markedly improved) was confirmed in the short term. The results after 5 years were significantly less optimistic with only 26% of the patients remaining fully continent. However, and additional 41% reported better urinary control beyond 5 years after treatment as compared to their situation prior to surgery. CONCLUSION: The transvaginal vesical neck suspension is an effective, easily performed surgical treatment for simple stress urinary incontinence. It is free of significant complications. The excellent results in the short term, however, decline significantly with a prolonged period of follow-up.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".