Long‐term patient satisfaction after retropubic and transobturator mid‐urethral slings for female stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to report long-term patient outcomes after retropubic and transobturator mid-urethral slings for female stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: Women who underwent mid-urethral sling for stress urinary incontinence between 2000 and 2010 were invited to participate in a survey regarding their overall improvement. Patients' outcomes were assessed using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form and the Global Response Assessment Scale. RESULTS: The questionnaires were completed by 330 patients. Their median age at the time of surgery was 54.8 years (±12.9) and the median follow-up period was 11.9 years (±6.4). Retropubic and transobturator approaches were performed in 128 (38.8%) and 202 (61.2%) patients, respectively. The International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire - Short Form score dropped from an average of 14 (±4.1) to 6.4 (±6) with no significant difference between the two groups. The Global Response Assessment Scale showed an 9% greater improvement in the retropubic (66.4%) over the transobturator (57.4%) approach. De novo overactive bladder was the commonest long-term reported adverse event, affecting 18/330 patients (5.5%). Voiding dysfunction that required surgical correction following the retropubic approach occurred in three patients (2.3%). CONCLUSION: Mid-urethral slings for the management of female stress urinary incontinence had good and durable long-term effects. Although the retropubic approach gave better results, they were not significantly different than those of the transobturator approach.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".