I-STOP Sling Tape: Is It Associated With Reduced Exposure Rates in Apical Prolapse and Urinary Incontinence Procedures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Type 1 polypropylene synthetic mesh has been the preferred mesh material used for reconstructive surgery in the female pelvis in the past. I-STOP is an inelastic monofilament macroporous polypropylene mesh tape with looped edges. Our primary aim was to assess the incidence of mesh complications, including exposure/erosion in women who underwent I-STOP suburethral sling or apical sling suspension procedures. Methods: This study was a retrospective review of a comprehensive urogynecological database at the Cleveland Clinic Florida of who underwent I-STOP suburethral sling procedures or apical sling suspension between 2009 and 2018. A total of 165 apical slings and 476 suburethral slings were collected at predetermined follow-up visits at 6 weeks, 6 months, and then yearly. Results: Of the apical slings, 86 (52%) had a follow-up for 6 months or longer, with the maximum patient follow-up of 99 months (mean of 19 months). Zero of the 86 patients that were followed up in the review developed mesh erosion/exposure. A total of 307 (64%) patients who underwent I-STOP suburethral slings had follow-up for 6 months or longer with the maximum patient follow-up of 158 months (mean of 36 months). Two patients developed mesh erosion/exposure with a calculated complication rate at 0.42%. No patients in either group developed clinically evident mesh contraction. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated lower mesh erosion/exposure and complication rates with the use of the I-STOP tape both in apical sling and suburethral sling procedures compared to complication rates reported with the use of other mesh products. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2020;9(1-2):12-16 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo643
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".