MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946459414 · doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000003275

Evaluation of the Effect of Surgeon's Operative Volume and Specialty on Likelihood of Revision After Mesh Midurethral Sling Placement

2019· article· en· W2946459414 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin A. Brennand, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrics and Gynecology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSling (weapon)Odds ratioRetrospective cohort studyConcomitantSurgeryCohortSpecialtyLogistic regressionConfidence intervalCohort studyPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To estimate rates of revision surgery after insertion of mesh midurethral slings and explore whether physician specialty, annual operative volume, or hospital type are associated with this outcome. METHODS: A population-based retrospective cohort of women undergoing midurethral sling procedures over a 13-year interval (2004-2017) in Alberta, Canada was created using administrative health data. The primary outcome was subsequent surgery for revision of midurethral sling, defined by a composite of surgical procedures. Exposures included annual number of midurethral sling procedures performed by the surgeon, surgeon specialty, facility type, patient age, and concomitant prolapse repair. Mixed effects logistic regression using linear spines was used to test a-priori hypothesis that annual surgical volume would be inversely related in a nonlinear fashion to risk of revision. RESULTS: In the cohort of 19,511 women, cumulative rates of revision surgery were 3.84% (95% CI 3.54-4.17) at 5 years and 5.26% (95% CI 4.82-5.74) at 10 years. The first year after midurethral sling placement was the most vulnerable window, with 0.40% (95% CI 0.31-0.49) undergoing revision within 30 days and 2.15% (95% CI 1.95-3.52) within 1 year. Concomitant prolapse repairs (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% CI 1.04-1.48) and surgeon's annual volume were associated with revision. After 50 cases per year, odds of revision declined with each additional case (OR 0.99/case, 95% CI 0.98-0.99, OR 0.91/10 cases, 95% CI 0.84-0.98) and plateaued at 110 cases per year. Surgeon specialty, hospital type, and patient age were not associated with outcome. CONCLUSION: One in 20 women undergo revision surgery within 10 years after midurethral sling placement. Higher physician surgical volume is associated with decreased risk, with the decline occurring at a threshold of 50 cases annually. Minimum caseload parameters for surgeons performing midurethral sling procedures may improve quality of these procedures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrics and GynecologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207