An in-house Composix™-based pubovaginal sling trial for female stress urinary incontinence: Five-year comparative followup to tension-free and transobturator vaginal tapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared the efficacy of three slings in the long-term treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI): tension-free vaginal tape (TVT), vaginal tape-obturator (TVT-O), and an in-house two-layered polypropylene mesh with a submicronic polytetrafluoroethylene (Composix™). Our primary endpoint was the objective measurement of continence (24-hour pad test). Secondarily, we measured the satisfaction and complication rates. METHODS: This prospective, non-randomized study included 128 patients with SUI. Preoperative evaluation included medical history, physical exam, 24-hour pad test, Urinary Incontinence Quality of Life Scale (IQOL), FPSUND, and global satisfaction questionnaires. Patients were followed at one month postoperative, biannually for two years, and then annually for a total of five years. Followup visits included a focused questionnaire, physical exam, satisfaction questionnaire, 24-hour pad test, IQOL, and FPSUND questionnaires. RESULTS: Composix, TVT, and TVT-O groups included 60, 34, and 34 patients, respectively. No significant differences were found in baseline characteristics except for the pad test. Length of catheterization was the only immediate operative significant parameter (Composix 4.7 days vs. TVT 1.1 days vs. TVT-O 2.6 days; p=0.03). The entire cohort had significant improvements in their IQOL, FPSUND, and pad test at one and four years (p<0.01). The cohort-wide 24-hour pad test average weight was 30.4 g preoperatively vs. 5 g at 12 months (p<0.00001) (Composix 37 to 5 g, TVT 83 to 4 g, and TVT-O 55 to 5 g). The Composix group had a higher number of minor complications (Clavien I, II) and secondary procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This single-surgeon cohort with five-year followup demonstrated a large improvement and maintenance of continence in all three surgical groups. The Composix-based sling provided comparable continence outcomes at a fraction of the cost; however, its increased morbidity and higher complication rate raise concerns over future use.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".