Urinary retention after AdVance™ Sling: A multi‐institutional retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To identify risk factors for urinary retention following AdVance™ Sling placement using preoperative urodynamic studies to evaluate bladder contractility. Methods A multi‐institutional retrospective review of patients who underwent an AdVance Sling for post‐prostatectomy stress urinary incontinence from 2007 to 2019 was performed. Acute urinary retention (AUR) was defined as the complete inability to void or elevated post‐void residual (PVR) leading to catheter placement or the initiation of intermittent catheterization at the first void trial postoperatively. Bladder contractility was evaluated based on preoperative urodynamics. Results Of the 391 patients in this study, 55 (14.1%) experienced AUR, and 6 patients (1.5%) had chronic urinary retention with a median follow‐up of 18.1 months. In total, 303 patients (77.5%) underwent preoperative urodynamics, and there was no significant difference between average PdetQmax (26.4 vs. 27.4 cmH2O), Qmax (16.6 vs. 16.2 ml/s), PVR (19.9 vs. 28.1 ml), bladder contractility index (108 vs. 103) for patients with or without AUR following AdVance Sling. Impaired bladder contractility preoperatively was not predictive of AUR. Time to postoperative urethral catheter removal was predictive of AUR (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.73–0.94; p = .003). Conclusions Chronic urinary retention after AdVance Sling placement is uncommon and acute retention is generally self‐limiting. No demographic or urodynamic factors were predictive of AUR. Patients who developed AUR were more likely to have their void trials within 2 days following AdVance Sling placement versus longer initial catheterization periods, suggesting that a longer duration of postoperative catheterization may reduce the occurrence of AUR.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".