Outcomes of sacral neuromodulation in male patients with overactive bladder, chronic pelvic pain, and fecal incontinence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite the growing body of literature on sacral neuromodulation (SNM) outcomes, research focusing on male patients remains limited and often represented by small cohorts nested within a larger study of mostly women. Herein, we evaluated the outcomes of SNM in a male-only cohort with overactive bladder (OAB), fecal incontinence (FI), chronic bladder pain, and neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction (NLUTD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 64 male patients who underwent SNM insertion between 2013 and 2021 at a high-volume tertiary center. Indications for SNM therapy included OAB, FI, chronic pelvic pain, and NLUTD. Descriptive statistics, Fisher's and t-test were used in analysis. RESULTS: The mean age was 57.7 ± 13.4 years, and the most frequent reason for SNM insertion was idiopathic OAB (72%), FI (16%), pelvic pain (11%), and NLUTD (11%). A majority (84%) of men received treatment prior to SNM insertion. 84% reported satisfaction and 92% symptom improvement within the first year, and these improvements persisted beyond 1 year in 73% of patients. Mean follow up was 52.7 ± 21.0 months. The complication rate was 23%, and the need for adjunct treatments was significantly reduced (73% to 27%, p < 0.001). Treatment outcomes did not differ significantly between various indications for SNM therapy or the presence of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). CONCLUSION: SNM is an effective and safe procedure for male patients with neurogenic and non-neurogenic OAB, pelvic pain, and FI. Over 70% of patients experienced symptomatic improvement and remained satisfied in the mid to long term follow up. BPH does not seem to hinder treatment outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".