Urodynamic and urethral pressure profilometry findings in women with voiding phase dysfunction treated with surgical urethrolysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Long-term urodynamic (UDS) and urethral pressure profilometry (UPP) parameters in women with voiding phase dysfunction following an anti-incontinence (AI) procedure have been poorly characterized. We report our 10-year UDS findings in women with voiding phase dysfunction after AI procedure, who underwent urethrolysis. Methods: We identified sequential records containing urethrolysis CPT codes over a 10-year period. Records of women with preoperative UDS were reviewed for demographics, UDS tracing, and outcomes following urethrolysis. Results: Twenty-five women (mean age 60 years) had voiding phase dysfunction and underwent urethrolysis at a mean of 47 months (interquartile range [IQR] 12–61) after AI procedure. Preoperatively, six (24%) women required intermittent catheterization. Free uroflowmetry revealed a mean: maximum peak flow (Qmax) 9.6 ml/s (IQR 7.0–11.0), voided volume 137 ml (IQR 81–169), and postvoid residual 167 ml (IQR 43–288). UDS revealed a mean: UPP length 24 mm (IQR 20–27), UPP closure pressure 78 cmH2O (IQR 59–103), Pdet@Qmax 31 cmH2O (IQR 19–43), Qmax 7.9 ml/s (IQR 5.0–12.0), bladder outlet obstruction index 15 (IQR 0–34), and bladder contractility index 71 (IQR 60–81). UPP length was significantly associated (Pearson correlation, p<0.05) with: bladder outlet obstruction index (r=0.80), Pdet@Qmax (r=0.75), and time since AI procedure (r=-0.70). UPP closure pressure was significantly associated with age (r=-0.64), volume of first (r=-0.64) and strong (r=-0.78) desire, and capacity (r=-0.71). Following urethrolysis, spontaneous voiding was achieved in 23 (92%) women at followup (mean 308 days). Conclusions: UPP may help characterize outlet parameters in women with voiding phase dysfunction following an AI procedure, who ultimately undergo urethrolysis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".