Does Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation With Synthetic Mesh Recreate Nulliparous Pelvic Anatomy? An MRI Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether the bilateral sacrospinous vault fixation (BSSVF) with synthetic, polypropylene mesh arms restores the nulliparous anatomic relationships of the vaginal vault in women with and without uterus using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This was a prospective case series of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP) who, after BSSVF, underwent a pelvic MRI (1-13 months postoperatively). Postsurgical pelvic distances were measured from MRI scans and compared with measurements from a group of 11 nulliparous women with adequate pelvic support who underwent MRI in a previous study. Our primary outcome measure was the difference in average distance from the vault to the ischial spine among women after BSSVF when compared with the average nulliparous distances. The secondary outcome measures were the difference in average distance from the posterior fornix to the sacrum and the change in apical POP quantification parameters 6 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Ten women underwent MRI post-BSSVF-4 women with and 6 women without uterine preservation. In the BSSVF group, similar to the nulliparous group measurements, the average distance between the vaginal apex and the spine was 5.2 cm (SD, 0.8) (95% confidence interval, -0.6 to 0.5; P = 0.92). There was an anterior-inferior displacement of the line between the vaginal apex and the sacrum in women who underwent BSSVF. The posterior fornix was 7.4 cm (SD, 1.2) from the second sacral vertebra versus 5.6 cm (SD, 1.5) in women without POP (P < 0.01). Adequate clinical resolution of apical prolapse was confirmed in all women 6 weeks post-BSSVF. CONCLUSIONS: The BSSVF with synthetic mesh restores the anatomy between the vagina and the ischial spines. Clinical studies are underway to compare BSSVF with standard techniques of vaginal vault prolapse repair.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".