Urodynamic parameters evolution after artificial urinary sphincter implantation for post-radical prostatectomy incontinence with concomitant bladder dysfunction.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Urodynamic assessment is strongly recommended before artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) implantation. Detrusor overactivity (DO) and/or hypersensitivity and/or mild loss of compliance are frequently demonstrated in post prostatectomy incontinence. The aim of this study was to evaluate urodynamic parameter changes before and after AUS implantation in patients with urinary incontinence post-radical prostatectomy (RP) and concomitant urodynamic bladder abnormalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of charts pre- and post-AUS implantation. Sixteen out of a cohort of 52 patients met our inclusion criteria: stress urinary incontinence (SUI) due to RP and bladder dysfunction (early bladder sensation and/or low compliance and/or small bladder capacity and/or the presence of DO). RESULTS: The mean age of these 16 patients was 68 ± 6.3 years, and the duration of incontinence was 3 ± 2.7 years. The number of pads/day was 5.7 ± 2.3 before AUS implantation, and 1 ± 0.7 after implantation. Average time for the last post-implantation UDS was 43 months (range 7 to 73 months). Comparison of pre- and post-AUS implantation urodynamic parameters revealed statistically significant improvement in bladder capacity from 271 ± 117 to 295.6 ± 151 mL (p = 0.05), bladder compliance from 7.6 ± 3.95 to 12.5 ± 10.3 mL/cmH2O (p = 0.03), and decrease in DO from 50% to 25% on cystometrograms. CONCLUSION: Preoperative urodynamic abnormalities improved after AUS implantation. Thus, mild bladder dysfunction should not be a contraindication to AUS placement for SUI post-RP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".