MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413116283 · doi:10.1186/s12894-025-01903-7

Intraoperative application of different imaging techniques in sacral neuromodulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4413116283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jialei Zhao, Haibin Tang, R.F Xu, Gang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Urology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSacral nerve stimulationNeuromodulationMeta-analysisMEDLINEMedical physicsRadiologySurgeryPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sacral neuromodulation (SNM) treats bladder dysfunction by implanting electrodes in the sacral foramen to regulate bladder reflexes. Accurate electrode placement is critical but challenging due to anatomical variations, intestinal gas interference, and radiation exposure from X-ray fluoroscopy. Alternative imaging methods are needed to improve precision and safety. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid Medline for studies (inception–June 2025) comparing imaging techniques for SNM. Outcomes included operative time, puncture attempts, and radiation dose. Study quality was assessed using ROB2, Newcastle‒Ottawa, and JBI tools. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included. Beyond X-ray fluoroscopy, ultrasound, CT, 3D printing, O-arm, reduced C-arm fluoroscopy, and electromagnetic navigation were successfully applied. Ultrasound shortened procedure time, reduced punctures, and lowered radiation (3 studies). CT (5 studies), O-arm (2 studies), and computer-assisted lead placement (1 study) also proved effective. 3D printing decreased test time, puncture attempts, and radiation (5 studies). Reduced fluoroscopy minimized radiation while maintaining success. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound, CT, and 3D printing enhance SNM success by reducing fluoroscopy time, puncture attempts, and radiation exposure compared to conventional X-ray methods. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these techniques and explore multi-modal imaging fusion for improved 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.017
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC UrologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207