To sling or not to sling? Impact of intraoperative sling procedures during radical prostatectomy on postoperative continence outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy of intraoperative sling procedures in reducing postprostatectomy urinary incontinence compared to having no slings. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane library from inception to November 2020 was performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized studies and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. The GRADE approach was used for critical appraisal of evidences and meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Results: Ten studies were included (n = 1,447). Quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Sling procedure was generally favorable for short-term continence outcomes, although discrepancies exist due to variability in continence definition. Sling procedure resulted in reduced urinary pad weight at 1 month postoperatively (MD: 21.55; 95%CI: 12.58 to 30.52). Patient-reported questionnaires were also favorable for the sling group for up to 3 months (IPSS; (MD: 1.44; 95%CI: 0.14 to 2.74), ICIQ-SF; (MD: 2.25; 95%CI: 1.26 to 3.24), EPIC-U; (MD: 5.30; 95%CI: 1.12 to 9.39)) postoperatively. Sling procedure improved the number of continent patients at 1 month with continence definition of zero pad use/day (RR:1.41; 95%CI: 1.10 to 1.83) but not with the definition of ≤ 1pad/day. Similarly, it reduced the time to continence with the ≤ 1 pad/day definition (MD: 0.5; 95%CI: 0.1 to 0.9) but not with the zero pad/day definition. Conclusion: The current literature suggests that intraoperative sling procedures during radical prostatectomy may promote early return of continence compared to having no sling, however, there are no long-term differences.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".