Complications after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with and without concomitant incontinence surgery: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare surgical complications for patients having minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISCP) with concomitant incontinence procedure, to those having MISCP alone. METHODS: Patients undergoing MISCP with and without a concomitant incontinence procedure between 2006 and 2015 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database using Current Procedural Terminology codes. The main outcome of interest was a composite of surgical site infection, bleeding requiring blood transfusion, return to the operating room within 30 days, and surgical stay >48 h. Log-binomial regression was used to identify independent risk factors for the outcome and to generate adjusted effect measures for variables of interest. RESULTS: Seven thousand ninety-seven women met the inclusion criteria, of which 2433 (34%) underwent a concomitant incontinence procedure. Patients having incontinence procedures were slightly older (59 ± 11 vs 58 ± 12, P < 0.0001) and had longer total operating time (225 IQR 170-267 vs 184 IQR 120-232 min, P < 0.0001). Pre-operative steroid use, wound class III/IV (vs I/II), and longer operative time were independent predictors of the composite outcome. After adjusting for baseline patient characteristics and co-morbidities, no association was observed between concomitant incontinence procedure and the composite outcome (adjusted RR 0.87, 95%CI 0.65-1.18) but there was an increased likelihood of urinary tract infection (adjusted RR 2.47 95%CI 1.89-3.27). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being associated with a longer operative time, performing an incontinence procedure at the time of MSCIP was not associated with an increased risk of clinically important surgical complications other than urinary tract infection.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".