Management of patients with stress urinary incontinence after failed midurethral sling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Surgical failure rates after midurethral sling (MUS) procedures are variable and range from approximately 8‒57% at five years of followup. The disparity in long-term failure rates is explained by a lack of long-term followup and lack of a clear definition of what constitutes failure. A recent Cochrane review illustrates that no high-quality data exists to recommend or refute any of the different management strategies for recurrent or persistent stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after failed MUS surgery. Clinical evaluation requires a complete history, physical examination, and establishment of patient goals. Conservative treatment measures include pelvic floor physiotherapy, incontinence pessary dish, commercially available devices (Uresta®, Impressa®), or medical therapy. Minimally invasive therapies include periurethral bulking agents (bladder neck injections) and sling plication. Surgical options include repeat MUS with or without mesh removal, salvage autologous fascial sling or Burch colposuspension, or salvage artificial urinary sphincter insertion. In this paper, we present the available evidence to support each of these approaches and include the management strategy used by our review panel for patients that present with SUI after failed midurethral sling.
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) | 0.001 | 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".