Babcock versus Scissor Tensioning for Retropubic Mid-Urethral Slings: Comparing Two Intra-Operative Techniques Through 5 Years of Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to determine if mid-urethral sling (MUS) tensioning with a Mayo Scissor as a sub-urethral spacer compared with a Babcock clamp holding a loop of tape under the urethra results in differences in patient-reported outcomes and rates of repeat surgery over a 5-year follow-up. METHODS: Follow-up 5 years after a randomized clinical trial, utilizing primary data collection linked to administrative health data, was carried out to create a longitudinal cohort. The primary outcome was participant-reported bothersome SUI symptoms, as defined by the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included participant-reported bothersome overactive bladder (OAB) scores, median scores of three validated urinary symptom questionnaires, and rates of subsequent surgery determined through patient report and administrative data. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty (81.8%) of the original study participants provided participant-reported data at 5 years. Administrative data linkage was completed for all of the original participants (n = 318). Demographic characteristics remained similar in the two groups at the 5-year follow-up mark. No differences existed in the primary outcome of reported bothersome SUI symptoms (30.8% Scissors vs 26.8% Babcock, p = 0.559), proportion of participants with bothersome OAB, the median scores of three validated bladder questionnaires, or in rates and cumulative incidence of recurrent MUS surgery or surgical revision of mesh-related complications. CONCLUSION: Both the Scissor and Babcock tensioning techniques provided comparable outcomes at 5 years post-MUS surgery. The information from this study allows surgeons to better decide which technique to adopt in their practice, providing confidence in longer-term cure and safety.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".