Laparoscopic excision of posterior vaginal fornix in the treatment of patients with deep endometriosis without rectum involvement: surgical treatment and long-term follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study is to evaluate the short- and long-term efficacy of complete laparoscopic excision of deep endometriosis, without rectum involvement, with the opening and partial excision of the posterior vaginal fornix. METHODS: Thirty-one patients were included in the study with symptomatic extensive disease including involvement of the cul-de-sac, rectovaginal space and posterior vaginal fornix without rectum involvement. Endoscopic surgery was performed with complete separation of rectovaginal space and in-block resection of the diseased tissue, opening and partial excision of the posterior vaginal fornix and vaginal closure either by laparoscopic or by vaginal route. Patients filled in questionnaires on pain before and 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months after surgical treatment. RESULTS: No intraoperative complications were observed; 65% were free of analgesic on post-operative day 2, 38% had total remission of chronic pain and 22% were improved; 38% had total remission of dysmenorrhoea and 22% were improved; 45% had total remission of dyspareunia and 25% were improved. Follow-up improvement of symptoms was statistically significant and was maintained for 5 years without recurrence of the disease or repeated surgery (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Complete surgical resection of deep infiltrative endometriosis with excision of the adjacent tissue of the posterior vaginal fornix improves quality of life with persistence of results for long time in patients not responsive to medical treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".