MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072228844 · doi:10.1097/prs.0b013e3182419c2c

Lipofilling of Perineal and Vaginal Scars

2012· article· en· W2072228844 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dietmar Ulrich, Franziska Ulrich, Lena van Doorn, Steven E. R. Hovius

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryVaginaScarsEpisiotomyRectumPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir:FigureChronic pain after episiotomy caused by scar contracture or neuroma formation remains a serious problem.1 The therapy of choice can be simple resection of the scar tissue with primary wound closure or local flaps. Recovery after these corrections may take time, with the risk of receiving no improvement, more pain, or poor cosmetic results. We have performed a prospective study with assessment of perineal/vaginal pain and sexual functioning before and after autologous free fat transplantation for correction of scars following childbirth in 20 patients (mean age, 34 ± 7.5 years; mean time after episiotomy, 10.3 ± 2.3 months). Mediolateral episiotomy had been performed in 18 patients. Two patients had pain after perineal laceration. Three patients have had correction of the scars with primary excision and no signs of improvement 6 months ago. All patients reported dyspareunia and other pain-related problems. Lipofilling was performed according to the Coleman technique,2 with scar release and implantation into parallel tunnels on multiple layers under the scars (Fig. 1). A special technique of infiltration with one finger in the vagina and another in the rectum was used to avoid injury of the rectum in case of lipofilling of scars of the posterior wall of the vagina. Perineal pain was assessed preoperatively and at different time points after lipofilling using the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, including the Present Pain Intensity index and a visual analogue scale.3 Sexual functioning was assessed with a revised Sabbatsberg Sexual Self-Rating Scale before and after intervention.4 Follow-up of the patients was scheduled after 1, 3, and 6 months. The distribution of variables within the patient group was compared by nonparametric analysis of variance (two-sample Wilcoxon test), and differences between dependent (paired) data were assessed by the nonparametric paired test (signed rank test). A value of p < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. An average volume of 12 ± 3 cc of autologous fat was injected (range, 7 to 15 cc). Four patients underwent two lipofilling sessions because of improvement with the first lipofilling but had remaining painful areas in one part of the scar. The average interval between these sessions was 4 ± 1.5 months. All patients made good postoperative recovery without major complications. Eighteen of 20 patients had an immediate subjective improvement of their pain obviously attributable to release of severe scar contractures. One month after lipofilling, the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire score was significantly reduced in comparison with the score before treatment (p < 0.05) (Fig. 2). Three and 6 months after treatment, the score had decreased further (p < 0.05). The Present Pain Intensity index and visual analogue scale score were also significantly reduced after 1, 3, and 6 months (p < 0.05). The Sabbatsberg Sexual Self-Rating Scale score showed a significant increase after lipofilling (p < 0.05). Fifteen patients were very satisfied with the small operation and five were satisfied.Fig. 1: Release of scar tissue combined with fat injection 8 months after mediolateral episiotomy in a 28-year-old patient with dyspareunia.Fig. 2: Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire scores before and 1, 3, and 6 months after lipofilling in patients with episiotomy and perineal laceration (*p < 0.05 versus before).A number of studies recently demonstrated the reliability, long-term stability, and safety of autologous free fat transplantation in reconstructive procedures.5 In our opinion, lipofilling also seems to be a promising treatment for correction of perineal/vaginal scars after episiotomy and perineal laceration. It is well tolerated and offers encouraging results, with improvement of pain and better sexual function. Dietmar Ulrich, M.D., Ph.D. Franziska Ulrich, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Lena van Doorn, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Gynecology Steven Hovius, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus University Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest in this research project or in any of the techniques or equipment used in the study. The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207