The use of biological and synthetic materials in vaginal surgery for prolapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews the currently available biological and synthetic graft materials available for pelvic prolapse. It also focuses on recent publications examining their use in transvaginal prolapse surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: There continue to be many case series investigating the treatment of anterior prolapse, however there are still very few publications examining new techniques involving apical fixation with large anterior/posterior meshes. Of note are three randomized studies that have recently been reported--two with anterior prolapse, one showing a lack of significant benefit of cadaveric fascia, one demonstrating the benefit of porcine dermis, and one with posterior prolapse demonstrating a lack of benefit of porcine SIS. SUMMARY: Despite the paucity of randomized control trials of various graft materials used in transvaginal prolapse surgery, the many case series published to date generally show relative safety and efficacy. There is still a need for more randomized controlled trials, however, to guide therapy and for well designed case series with longer follow up, especially regarding new techniques involving large anterior/posterior meshes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".