Vaginal surgical approach to vaginal vault prolapse: considerations of anatomic correction and safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pelvic organ prolapse is a common problem in women and often requires surgical management. Vaginal vault prolapse requires significant expertise. The pelvic reconstructive surgeon should be familiar with various methods of repair, including the vaginal approach, in order to provide appropriate individualized patient care. The safety of procedures should be balanced against the need for anatomic correction. RECENT FINDINGS: Vaginal surgical approaches such as sacrospinous suspension, although shown in the past to have slightly less success than abdominal approaches such as sacral colpopexy, continue to have good safety and efficacy profiles, and may be used in appropriately selected patients. Randomized clinical trials are still required to compare different vaginal procedures such as sacrospinous and uterosacral ligament suspension. A new minimally invasive transperineal approach, posterior intravaginal slingplasty, requires further evaluation before being used in routine clinical practice. SUMMARY: Posthysterectomy prolapse of the apical vaginal compartment frequently requires a surgical solution. This may be approached via the abdominal, vaginal or combined route. A vaginal approach, being less invasive, may be the safer option if carefully performed. The gynecologic surgeon must balance the advantages of anatomic correction (e.g. with sacrospinous vault suspension) against the advantages of a potentially safer yet less anatomically correct procedure (e.g. colpocleisis). The surgical approach must be individualized for every patient.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".