Efficacy and patient satisfaction of pelvic organ prolapse reduction using transvaginal mesh: A Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Due to U.S Food and Drud Administration warnings and class-action lawsuits, the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse surgery is controversial. We report data from two Canadian centres, focusing on recurrence and reoperation rates, complication rates, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: A retrospective medical chart review was performed. Patients were also invited to a long-term followup clinic for a complete questionnaire and gynecological exam. Patients unable to present to clinic for followup had the option to answer the questionnaire via telephone. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were operated between 2000 and 2013. Median followup was 38 months for questionnaire and 36 months for physical exam. Thirty-seven patients (11.1%) required repeat operation, including 17 for recurrent prolapse and 10 for mesh exposure; 98.8% of patients reported feeling subjectively improved by their prolapse surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Midterm results are satisfactory and patient subjective satisfaction is high following transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".