Complications of Exteriorized Compared With In Situ Uterine Repair at Cesarean Delivery Under Spinal Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare intraoperative complications of exteriorized and in situ uterine repair during elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. METHODS: This study was a randomized, single-blinded trial in 80 women undergoing elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned to exteriorized or in situ uterine repair. Obstetricians were asked to perform assisted delivery of the placenta. Spinal anesthesia and oxytocin management were standardized. Phenylephrine was used to maintain systolic blood pressure within 10% of the baseline. The primary outcome was intraoperative, postdelivery nausea or vomiting. RESULTS: Postdelivery nausea or vomiting (18% compared with 38%; P=.04) and tachycardia (3% compared with 18%; P=.03) were significantly reduced in the in situ group compared with the exteriorized group. The duration of uterine repair was significantly shorter in the exteriorized group (median 10 minutes [first and third quartiles 9, 13], compared with 11 minutes [9, 15]) (P=.04). The duration of surgery (36 minutes [30, 41] compared with 37 minutes [30, 45]) and estimated blood loss (mean+/-standard deviation 625+/-489 mL compared with 653+/-416 mL) were similar between the in situ and the exteriorized groups. There was no correlation between duration of uterine repair and estimated blood loss. CONCLUSION: Exteriorization of the uterus for repair is associated with an increased incidence of nausea and vomiting and tachycardia during cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia. Uterine repair should be done in situ where possible. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00452972 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".