Preoperative pad usage is independently associated with failure of non-adjustable male trans-obturator slings in otherwise well-selected patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to determine which clinical factors are associated with failure to achieve continence after nonadjustable trans-obturator sling in otherwise well-selected men undergoing treatment for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI). METHODS: XP male sling procedures was performed from December 2006 to May 2017. Patients with known risk factors for sling failure, including severe incontinence (>5 pads), radiation therapy, or detrusor dysfunction, were excluded. The primary outcome was failure to achieve continence, defined as ≤1 pad per day when pad use was ≥2 preoperatively (or 0 pads if preoperative pad use was 1). Covariates included patient age, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), diabetes, obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥35), type of prostatectomy, and number of preoperative pads. Descriptive statistics and Cox regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 158 patients, continence was achieved in 82.3% (n=130) with a mean followup of 42.7 months. Patient-reported satisfaction was 86.7% (n=137) and the 90-day complication rate was 12% (n=19). On univariate Cox regression analysis, increasing age (p=0.02), CCI (p=0.02), and preoperative pad use (p<0.0001) were associated with sling failure, whereas obesity (p=0.95), diabetes (p=0.49), and type of prostatectomy (p=0.88) were not. On multivariate analysis, only increasing preoperative pad use remained associated with sling failure (hazard ratio [HR] 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-16; p=0.008). Patients wearing >3 pads per day were more likely to experience failure (35.5% vs. 13.4%; p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing preoperative pad use is independently associated with an increased risk of failure after non-adjustable sling for post-prostatectomy incontinence in otherwise well-selected patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".