Vaginal sacrospinous fixation: experience in a district general hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is an observational retrospective study, which included 77 patients who underwent sacrospinous fixation (SSF) over a period of 3 years in a district general hospital. Casenotes were reviewed and all patients were invited to attend a further review appointment (14-49 months). The object was to determine short- and long-term success of SSF,particularly in elderly (28% were > or = 70 years), obese (24.7%) and medically compromised (64.9%) patients. Fifty-two patients (67.5%) had previous gynaecological procedures, while the remaining 25 (32.5%) had no previous surgery. Intra- and postoperative complications were 3.9% and 32.5%, respectively. There was considerable relief of patients' symptoms at both short- and long-term followup, while the rate of recurrence of vault prolapse was 10.3%. Our experience suggests that SSF appears to be a safe and effective procedure, especially for those who may constitute surgical or anaesthetic risks. It has a reasonable success rate, good postoperative recovery and acceptable long-term results.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".