Management of bladder outlet obstruction after stress urinary incontinence surgery in women: Results of a North American Survey among surgeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction To gather expert opinion and describe trends in the management of early and prolonged bladder outlet obstruction following stress urinary incontinence surgery. Methods Expert physicians and members of the Society of Urodynamics, Female Pelvic Medicine & Urogenital Reconstruction (SUFU), were queried by means of an online survey regarding the management of bladder outlet obstruction following stress urinary incontinence surgery. Results Sixty surgeons answered the questionnaire (9 %). Most responders performed >20 sling procedures per year, and 15% of them were autologous fascial pubovaginal slings. The estimated prevalence of complete postoperative urinary retention was 3%. The prevalence of post-void residual volume ≥200 ml, was estimated around 8 %. Of those presenting with post-void residual ≥200 ml, 35 % were symptomatic. For a inability to void 48 hours after synthetic mid-urethral sling insertion, most responders would observe for a week before planning an incision of the sling. In the case of post-void residual ≥200 ml, the trend of the majority would be observation. In patient in inability to void 48 hours following autologous fascial pubovaginal sling procedure, most participants would offer observation, as well as if the patient presented with post-void residual ≥200 ml. Conclusions According to expert opinion, although we could highlight some trends in the management of bladder outlet obstruction associated with urinary retention following the surgical management of female stress urinary incontinence, particularly with regards to observation, there was no consensus on the management in terms of method or timing of surgical revision.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".