Compression or obstruction: Prospective analysis of the function of the adjustable transobturator male system (ATOMS) based on pre- and postoperative urodynamic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This analysis, based on pre- and postoperative urodynamic data, is the first to elucidate the influence of the Adjustable Transobturator Male System (ATOMS, A.M.I. GmbH, Feldkirch, Austria) on the lower urinary tract and disclose possible obstructive properties. METHODS: A prospective study was performed in patients who had stress urinary incontinence and were scheduled for ATOMS implantation after radical prostatectomy. Apart from continence assessment (24-hour pad test, International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form [ICIQ-SF]), urodynamic testing was done with International Continence Society (ICS)-standardized pressure-flow analysis before and after ATOMS implantation/adjustment. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included 12 consecutive patients from two centers (mean age 69 years) with a mean followup of 246 days. Median urine leakage dropped from 240 (72-1250) to 70 (0-700) g/24 hours postoperatively, with a pad reduction of 4 to 0.9 pads/ day. Pressure-flow analysis revealed a significant change only in the bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI). The bladder contractility index, intravesical pressure conditions, and uroflowmetry were not significantly affected. None of the patients showed de novo obstruction postoperatively in the ICS analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The ATOMS significantly increases the BOOI in conjunction with good continence results. However, no case reached pathological level according to the BOOI and thus there is no potential danger to the lower urinary tract or urethral integrity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".