MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288441278 · doi:10.1002/nau.24987

Prospective, multicenter study to evaluate performance and safety of a re‐engineered temporary lead for InterStim™ therapy evaluation

2022· article· en· W4288441278 on OpenAlexaff
Dean Elterman, Jodi Michaels, Eric Margolis, Janet E. Harris-Hicks, Kimberly Burgess, Christopher D. Betts, Chris Harding, Geoffrey D. Towers, Hashim Hashim, Akin Ojo‐Carons, A. M. White, Tracy Cannon‐Smith, Nathan Grunow, Katie C. Bittner, Keith Xavier

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurourology and Urodynamics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersMedtronic
KeywordsMedicineOveractive bladderLead (geology)ImplantPercutaneousProspective cohort studySurgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The basic evaluation or percutaneous nerve evaluation (PNE) is a method to assess pre-implantation therapeutic response in patients considering sacral neuromodulation for the treatment of refractory overactive bladder. A new PNE lead with a more robust design and greater distensibility designed to reduce the possibility of lead migration has recently been introduced to the market. The aim of this prospective, multicenter, global, postmarket study was to evaluate the clinical performance and safety of the new InterStim PNE lead with the foramen needle. METHODS: Patients with overactive bladder were enrolled in this study. The primary objective of this study was to determine the proportion of subjects who demonstrated motor or sensory response(s) during lead placement using the InterStim PNE lead. Additional measures included the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), patient satisfaction at the end of therapy evaluation, and change in bladder symptoms from baseline to the end of therapy evaluation (1-week follow-up visit). RESULTS: One-hundred and ten subjects met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and underwent a lead implant procedure. Of those, 108 had a successful procedure and 107 completed the 1-week follow-up visit. Ninety-nine percent of subjects (109/110) had a motor or sensory response during needle placement (95% confidence interval [CI]: 95%-100%) and 97% of subjects (107/110) had a motor or sensory response during lead placement (95% CI: 92%-99%). The majority of subjects (88%, 95/108) reported their bladder condition was better at the follow-up visit compared to before the PNE implant procedure, as reported in PGI-I. Subjects reported being satisfied with how the therapy impacted their voiding symptoms (82%, 88/108) and that they would recommend this therapy (87%, 94/108) to other patients. Symptom improvement was demonstrated with urinary urge incontinence subjects having an average of 4.2 ± 3.4 urinary incontinence episodes/day at baseline and 2.2 ± 2.5 at follow-up, and urinary frequency subjects having an average of 12.5 ± 4.4 voids/day at baseline and 10.5 ± 4.3 voids/day at follow-up. Lead removal was deemed to be easy and safe by the implanting physician, with a total of three adverse device effects in 3/110 subjects. No event was categorized as serious and all were resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: The updated InterStim PNE lead with a more robust design and greater distensibility designed to reduce migration was shown to have a high rate of motor or sensory response during lead placement. Furthermore, subjects reported high rates of global improvements and amelioration of symptoms, and the lead was easy to remove with minimal morbidity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.263
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurourology and UrodynamicsSame topicUrinary Bladder and Prostate ResearchFrench-language works237,207