Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key content Surgical correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse is a common gynaecological procedure, with traditional anterior colporrhaphy changing little over the past 100 years. Within the literature, terminology is confusing, both on anatomical structures and classification of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Synthetic meshes have become available but the evidence to support their use is limited and long‐term adverse effects are not clear. The paravaginal repair is an alternative to consider and can be approached vaginally, abdominally or laparoscopically. Learning objectives To revise the relevant anatomy of the anterior vaginal compartment and the classification of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. To review the evidence for the use of permanent mesh in pelvic floor surgery. To learn about the surgical options for correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse without the use of vaginal mesh. Ethical issues Should permanent meshes be used for anterior vaginal wall prolapse outside a clinical research setting? Please cite this article as: McCracken GR, Lefebvre G. Mesh‐free anterior vaginal wall repair: history or best practice? The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist 2007;9:233–242.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".