Four‐year follow‐up on 68 patients with a new post‐operatively adjustable long‐term implant for post‐prostatectomy stress incontinence: ProACT™
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This paper presents 4-year follow-up results for patients enrolled in a pivotal study conducted to support an FDA premarket approval application (PMAA). The study evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ProACT Adjustable Continence Therapy for the treatment of post-prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: The clinical study involved 11 clinical sites and enrolled 160 subjects, all male. A total of 124 subjects met study criteria and 123 were implanted with ProACT. Baseline and outcomes for 68 patients who completed 4-year follow-up visits are reported. Endpoints included 24-h pad weight, Incontinence Quality of Life Questionnaire (I-QOL), UCLA Prostate Cancer Index-Urinary Function (PCI-UF), residual volume, and incidence and severity of device or procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: Statistically significant improvements during follow-up were observed in 24-h pad weight, for which the mean pre-implant urine loss was 293 g, which was reduced at 4 years to 73 g (P < 0.001). Reductions in pad weight were observed across all levels of pre-implant SUI severity. Significant improvements were also seen in quality of life as measured by the I-QOL (P < 0.001) as well as measures of urinary function and pad use. One procedure-related SAE (retention) was reported among the 68 subjects; the SAE was resolved without clinical meaningful sequalae. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the long-term safety and efficacy of this newly FDA-approved therapy, showing significant improvements in both objective and subjective measures of SUI in mild, moderate, and severely incontinent male patients. The implant procedure is minimally invasive, and complications are generally mild and easily resolvable.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".