<p>Revisiting current treatment options for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a contemporary literature review</p>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affect many women in their lifetime. In this review, we describe and evaluate the latest treatment options for SUI and POP, including the controversy around transvaginal mesh (TVM) use. Growing evidence supports the utilization of pelvic floor muscle training as first-line treatment for both SUI and POP. Vaginal pessaries continue to be an effective and reversible option to manage SUI and POP symptoms. The midurethral sling remains the gold standard for surgical treatment of SUI, although patients and clinicians should acknowledge the potentially serious complications of TVM. Burch urethropexy and pubovaginal sling offer good SUI cure and may be preferred in women wishing to avoid mesh implants; however, their operative morbidities and more challenging surgical approach may limit their use. Site-specific cystocele or rectocele repairs may be indicated for isolated anterior or posterior vaginal compartment prolapse; however, in women with more severe POP, evidence supports using a vaginal native-tissue repair involving apical suspension as the primary surgical technique. Although abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies are both effective in treating POP, their failure and mesh complication rates increase with time. There is insufficient evidence to support the widespread use of uterine-preserving surgical POP repairs at present due to the lack of long-term data. Routine TVM use is not recommended in POP surgeries and should only be considered on a case-by-case basis by trained surgeons, primarily in women with multiple risk factors for POP recurrence. In general, clinicians should individualize SUI and POP treatment options for women based on their symptoms, comorbidities, and risk factors for mesh-related complications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".