Long-Term Impact of Abdominal Sacral Colpoperineopexy on Symptoms of Obstructed Defecation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To determine the long-term impact of abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy on symptoms of obstructed defecation. METHODS: : This is a long-term retrospective cohort study. We included women who underwent abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy at our institution between 2001 and 2005. We compared preoperative and postoperative symptoms using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form 20. Postoperative status was assessed on a mailed postal questionnaire. Obstructed defecation was defined using items from the colorectal-anal obstructive subscale. We also assessed patient satisfaction. Descriptive statistics were computed using standard methods for mean, median and proportions. RESULTS: : The study includes 38 women (21 completed both preoperative and postoperative questionnaires). Of 27 women completing the postoperative questionnaire at a median follow-up of 65 months (range 35-90 months), 23 (85%) reported obstructed defecatory symptoms and 12 (52%) reported bothersome symptoms. Sixty-three percent were satisfied with the results of their surgery. CONCLUSIONS: : Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy is unlikely to eliminate symptoms of obstructed defecation, although two-thirds of the participants remain satisfied with their surgery at 5 years.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".