Surgical treatment of post‐prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence in adult men: Report from the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To report the recommendations of the 6th International Consultation on Incontinence (ICI) on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. METHODS: The 6th ICI committee on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence in men assessed and reviewed the outcomes of surgical therapy and updated the prior recommendations published in 2013. Articles from peer-reviewed journals, abstracts from scientific meetings, and literature searches by hand and electronically formed the basis of this review. The resulting guidelines were presented at the 2016 ICI meeting in Tokyo, Japan. RESULTS: Voiding diary and pad tests are valuable for assessing quantity of leakage. Cystoscopy and/or urodynamics may be useful in guiding therapy depending on the type of incontinence and presumed etiology. Artificial Urinary Sphincter (AUS) is the preferred treatment for men with moderate to severe stress urinary incontinence (SUI) after RP. Male slings are an acceptable approach for men with mild to moderate SUI. Much discussion centers on the definition of moderate SUI. Injectable agents have a poor success rate in men with SUI. Options for recurrent SUI due to urethral atrophy after AUS implantation include changing the pressure balloon, downsizing the cuff and increasing the amount of fluid in the system. Infection and/or erosion demand surgical removal or revision of all or part of the prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Although there are several series reporting the outcomes of different surgical interventions for PPUI, there is still a need for prospective randomized clinical trials. Recommendations for future research include standardized workup and outcome measures, and complete reporting of adverse events at long-term.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".