Long‐term anatomical and functional results of laparoscopic promontofixation for pelvic organ prolapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term anatomical and functional outcomes of laparoscopic promontofixation (LP) for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), and the long-term safety of LP, as POP is a common problem in women of all ages, with treatment including vaginal, abdominal, laparoscopic or robot-assisted surgical approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the first consecutive 186 women who underwent LP for POP, with or without stress urinary incontinence (SUI), from January 1998 to December 2002 in one centre. Those patients with concurrent SUI had LP with a Burch colposuspension or tension-free vaginal tape (TVT). The recurrence rate of POP was evaluated by physical examination at follow-up visits and by the patients, using a postal, unvalidated self-applied questionnaire (SAQ). Patients' urinary, sexual and digestive functions, overall satisfaction about surgery and quality of life, were evaluated with SAQ. RESULTS: All 186 patients had LP, with concomitant Burch (25) or TVT (100) procedures. The median (interquartile range) follow-up was 60 (48-71) months. In all, 71% of the patients attended their follow-up visits and the success rate was 92.4%. Eight patients were re-operated because of recurrent POP. The SAQ response rate was 95%; 91.1% and 79.8% of responders were satisfied or very satisfied after their surgery, and with their quality of life, respectively; women were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied because of recurrence of POP (seven), urinary symptoms (five) or constipation (two). Patients complained of recurrent POP (10.8%), persistent or recurrent UI (27.3% of the women treated with Burch and 21.1% with TVT), and transient constipation (20%). Over half of the women (50.6%) were not sexually active and 5.4% developed dyspareunia. The long-term complication rate was 6%; there were five vaginal mesh erosions. CONCLUSION: POP treated with LP offers excellent long-term results with low recurrence and morbidity rates, and a good quality of life.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".