Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Currently, the two laparoscopic techniques available and described in the literature for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse are uterosacral ligament vault suspension and sacrocolpopexy. These two techniques are opposing each other fundamentally. While the first is reconstructive, the second is essentially palliative. RECENT FINDINGS: In both methods the surgeon starts with the identification and dissection of the pubocervical and rectovaginal fascia. In the first technique however, the new vaginal vault, made by re approximation of the two fasciae, is attached to the uterosacral complex, while in the second one, each fascia is suspended from the sacral promontorium, using a mesh. In review of the existing literature, it seems that the palliative surgical approach is more successful in the long term, giving a cure rate of approximately 92%, probably as it involves using mesh instead of the native tissue. SUMMARY: In this article we discuss the laparoscopic techniques available currently, analyse their results, discuss their differences and compare them with other non-laparoscopic techniques. Finally, we discuss the different options described, and offer some guidelines for the future of laparoscopic treatment of pelvic prolapse.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".