Retrograde leak point pressure measurement improves outcomes of the Virtue male sling for postprostatectomy incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: We aimed to compare the efficacy of two different sling tensioning approaches, and to report our experience, including safety and impact on quality of life (QoL) of the Virtue® male sling for the treatment of postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI).Methods: From our prospectively maintained database, we retrospectively identified all men treated with the Virtue male sling for PPI between March 2009 and February 2014 by two urologists in two institutions. Baseline demographic data and the sling tensioning method were abstracted from the database. Likewise, the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale, severity of incontinence, and clinical outcomes were also abstracted.Results: 48 patients were treated with the Virtue quadratic male sling. Sling tensioning was done using cystoscopy in the first 18 patients (Group 1), while per-operative retrograde leak point pressure (RLPP) measurement was done in the last 30 patients (Group 2). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) followup from the day of surgery was 22 (15‒41) months. At the last followup visit, 7 (39%) patients in Group 1 were cured or improved of their PPI, compared to 21 (70%) patients in Group 2 (p=0.03). The final median (IQR) RLPP in these patients was 41 (37–48) cm H2O. Transient pain was the most common adverse event, occurring in 23 (48%) of patients. Twenty-one (70%) patients in Group 2 were “much better” or “very much better” with their device, compared to 7 (39%) in Group 1 (p=0.0008).Conclusions: The Virtue male sling is a valuable treatment option for PPI. Per-operative RLPP measurement significantly improves cure and satisfaction rates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".