Bladder neck placement of a synthetic polypropylene sling for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Pubo-vaginal sling placed at the bladder neck is the gold standard treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The synthetic mid-urethral sling (MUS) is now widely used, as morbidity rates with this technique are substantially reduced. This is an initial report on long-term outcomes of a polypropylene sling (PPS) placed in the traditional bladder neck location.Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent PPS insertion at our institution between 2006 and 2014 was conducted. Patient and urodynamic demographics were recorded. Subjective and objective measures of success were determined by postoperative pad usage and validated incontinence questionnaires. Results: A total of 170 patients were followed for a median of four years (range 1–8). The mean age was 51 years (±10). Subjective response was assessed in 57% of patients; the overall subjective cure rate was 85.3% (n=145), subjective improvement rate was 4.1% (n=7), and the subjective failure rate was 10.6% (n=18). The mean Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI)-6 score was 6.5 (±5.6) out of a maximum score of 24 and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ)-7 score was 5.5 (±6.3) out of a maximum score of 28. There was no significant difference in objective outcome measures in those with an abdominal leak-point pressure (ALPP) < or >60 cmH2O.Conclusions: Bladder neck placement of a PPS resulted in cure rates of 85% in this series. SUI secondary to intrinsic sphincter deficiency (ISD) and urethral hypermobility were treated with equal success. Bladder neck PPS placement has a role in the treatment of SUI. Our data may well reassure rectus fascia sling (RFS) surgeons who wish to take advantage of faster postoperative recovery using the less invasive PPS placed at the bladder neck.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".