Urethrovaginal fistula repair with or without concurrent fascial sling placement: A retrospective review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to review outcomes of urethrovaginal fistula (UVF) repair, with or without concurrent fascial sling placement. METHODS: All patients diagnosed with UVF at our center from 1988-2017 were included in this study. Patient charts were reviewed from a prospectively kept fistula database, and patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were described. Descriptive statistics were applied to compare complication rates between patients with or without fascial sling placement at the time of UVF repair. RESULTS: A total of 41 cases of UVF were identified, all of which underwent surgical repair. Median age at diagnosis was 49 years (interquartile range [IQR] 35-62). All patients had undergone pelvic surgery. UVF etiology was secondary to stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery in 17 patients (41%) and urethral diverticulum repair in seven patients (17%). The most common presenting symptom was continuous incontinence in 19 patients (46%). Nineteen patients had a fascial sling placed at the time of surgery (46%), with no significant difference in complication rates (26% vs. 23%, p=0.79). Two patients had Clavien-Dindo grade I complications (5%) and one had a grade III complication (2%). Four patients had long-term complications (10%), including urinary retention, chronic pain, and urethral stricture. Two patients had UVF recurrence (5%). Median followup after surgery was 21 months (IQR 4-72). CONCLUSIONS: UVF should be suspected in patients with continuous incontinence following a surgical procedure. Most UVF surgical repairs are successful and can be done with concurrent placement of a fascial sling.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".