What Happens to the Posterior Compartment and Bowel Symptoms After Sacrocolpopexy? Evaluation of 5-Year Outcomes From E-CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe posterior prolapse (pPOP) and obstructed defecation (OD) symptoms 5 years after open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC). METHODS: We grouped the extended colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts trial participants with baseline and 5-year outcomes into 3 groups using baseline posterior Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) points and concomitant posterior repair (PR) (no PR, Ap <0; no PR, Ap ≥0; and +PR). Posterior colporrhaphy, perineorrhaphy, or sacrocolpoperineopexy were included as PR, which was performed at surgeon's discretion. Outcomes were dichotomized into presence/absence of pPOP (Ap ≥0) and OD symptoms (≥2 on 1 or more questions about digital assistance, excessive straining, or incomplete evacuation). Composite failure was defined by both pPOP and OD symptoms or pPOP reoperation. RESULTS: Ninety participants completed baseline and 5-year outcomes or were retreated with mean follow-up of 7.1 ± 1.0 years. Of those with no PR (Ap <0), 2 women (2/36; 9%) developed new pPOP with OD symptoms; 1 underwent subsequent PR. Nearly all (23/24; 96%) with no PR (Ap ≥0) demonstrated sustained resolution of pPOP, and none underwent PR. Fourteen percent (4/29) of +PR underwent repeat PR within 5 years, and 12% had recurrent pPOP. Regardless of PR, OD symptoms improved in all groups after ASC, although OD symptoms were still present in 17% to 19% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Symptomatic pPOP is common 5 years after ASC regardless of concomitant PR. Obstructed defecation symptoms may improve after ASC regardless of PR. Recurrent pPOP and/or reoperation was highest among those who received concomitant PR at ASC. Further studies identifying criteria for concomitant PR at the time of ASC are warranted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".