Should the visceral peritoneum at the bladder flap closed at cesarean sections? A post-partum sonographic and clinical assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare cesarean section (CS) using open or closed visceral peritoneum of the bladder flap (BF) in relation to fluid collection in vesico-uterine space (VUS) by ultrasound (US) and clinical outcome. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective cohort of repeat CS in 474 in advanced first and second stage of labor was studied. All women underwent a Misgav Ladach CS, in local combined anesthesia. These were divided into two groups by surgical management of the BF at the time of CS: Group I (n = 262), with visceral peritoneum left open and Group II (n = 212), with visceral peritoneum closed. An US check for the fluid collections in the VUS was done in the third post-operative day. The two groups were also clinically compared for: intra-operative estimated blood loss, the need for post-CS pain killers, febrile morbidity and duration of hospital stay. RESULTS: Visceral peritoneum (VP) closure resulted in a significant increase blood collections in the VUS (p < 0.05). VP closure resulted in a significantly higher morbidity in all the following parameters. Rate of BFHs, post-operative fever, need for post-operative analgesia, require antibiotic administration and prolonged hospitalisation (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: VP suturing of women requiring CS for dystocia is associated to increased rate of blood collection in the VUS, which could possibly explain the higher rate of puerperal complications in these patients. These data clearly indicate that suturing the VP of the BF in women undergoing CS for dystocia is contraindicated. This data could be probably extrapolated to all cesarean deliveries.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".