Protocol for the RoboSling Trial: A Randomised Study Assessing Urinary Continence Following Robotic Radical Prostatectomy with or without an Intraoperative Retropubic Vascularised Fascial Sling (RoboSling)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine if early (three months) and late (one year) post-operative continence is improved by performing a novel retropubic vascularised fascial sling (RoboSling) procedure concurrently with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in men undergoing treatment for localised prostate cancer. To additionally assess surgical outcomes, quality of life and health economic outcomes in patients undergoing the novel RoboSling technique. Methods: This study aims to recruit 120 consecutive patients with clinically localised prostate cancer who have chosen to undergo robot-assisted radical prostatectomy in the Sydney Local Health District, Australia. A prospective assessment of early and late post-operative continence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with and without a RoboSling procedure will be performed in a two-group, 1:1, parallel, randomized controlled trial. Four surgeons will take part in the study, all of whom are beyond their learning curve. Patients will be blinded as to whether the RoboSling procedure is performed for them, as will be the research officers collecting the post-operative data on urinary function. Trial Registration: ACTRN12618002058257. Results: The trial is currently underway. Conclusions: The RoboSling technique is unique in that the sling is vascularised and has a broad surface area compared to previously described slings in the literature. If a clinically significant improvement in post-operative continence is established with the RoboSling, then, we can in turn expect improvements in quality of life for men undergoing this technique with radical prostatectomy.
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 | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.026 |
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".