Quality of life and patient satisfaction after artificial urinary sphincter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: We assessed satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) inmen with artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) placement.Methods: We identified 39 men who had AUS placement. Aretrospective chart review was conducted. Validated questionnaires,including the International Consultation on IncontinenceQuestionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF), Post-Operative PatientGlobal Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), Incontinence ImpactQuestionnaire-Short Form (IIQ-SF), and Urogenital Distress Index(UDI-SF), were used to measure patient-reported outcome. Globalsatisfaction was also assessed.Results: At chart review, 34 of 39 questionnaires were assessedfor QOL, satisfaction and surgical outcome. Follow-up rangedfrom 7 to 60 months (median = 24 months). Surgical revisionswere required in 6 (17.6%) patients due to infection (1), erosion(1), combined infection and erosion (1), device failure (1) andsecond cuff placement (2). Quality of life was assessed using theIIQ-SF and UDI-SF, with mean scores of 15.4 and 24.8, respectively;these scores indicated a low negative impact on QOL. TheICIQ-SF mean score was 8.2, well below the worst possible score.The number of men using more than 1 pad per day dropped from27 preoperatively to 10 postoperatively. Most patients (31/34)described their urinary condition as better, 2 had no changeand 1 was worse. Most patients (31/34, 91.2%) would be willingto undergo the procedure again, 2 were undecided, and 1would not. Similarly, 28 patients (82.4%) would recommend theprocedure to a friend, 3 respondents would “with reservation,”1 respondent was undecided, and 2 would not recommend theAUS placement.Conclusion: Treatment of urinary incontinence with the AUS hasa positive effect on QOL with high patient satisfaction and reasonablylow complication rates.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".