Artificial urinary sphincter significantly better than fixed sling for moderate post‐prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence: a propensity score‐matched study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) vs retrourethral transobturator sling (RTS) in men with moderate post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) using propensity score-matching analysis to enhance the validity of the comparison (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). PATIENTS AND METHODS: ; Boston Scientific, Boston, MA, USA) since July 2011 to December 2017 and with ≥12 months of follow-up. Preoperative assessment included 24-h pad usage, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF), urethrocystoscopy, and urodynamics if indicated. Propensity score-matching analysis was based on age, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pad usage, previous radiotherapy, and urethrotomy. The primary outcome was at least 'much improved' response at 12-months according to the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire, without additional PPI surgery or prosthesis explantation. RESULTS: Of 109 included patients, 70 patients were matched and the study groups were well balanced for the baseline matched variables. The median baseline 24-h pad usage was four in both groups (P = 0.10), and median follow-up was 51.2 months for AUS and 47.2 months (P = 0.5) for RTS patients. In the AUS and RTS cohorts, respectively, 33 (94.3%) and 24 (68.6%) patients achieved the primary outcome (P < 0.001), the 0-1 pad/day rates was 94.3% vs 68.6% (P = 0.012) at 12 months, and 91.4% vs 68.6% (P = 0.034) at last follow-up. At the last follow-up, the median 24-h leakage volumes, median ICIQ-SF scores and satisfaction rates were 0 vs 15 mL (P = 0.017), 4 vs 10 (P = 0.001), and 94.3% vs 68.6% (P = 0.012) in the AUS and RTS cohorts, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall rates of complications and re-interventions, although Clavien-Dindo Grade III complications (n = 3) occurred only in the AUS group. At sensitivity analysis, the study was reasonably robust to hidden bias. CONCLUSION: We found that AUS implantation significantly outperformed RTS in patients with moderate PPI for both subjective and objective outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".