Influence of Abdominal Binder Usage after Cesarean Delivery on Postoperative Mobilization, Pain and Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of abdominal binder usage on mobilization, postoperative pain, and distress after cesarean delivery. Materials and Methods: This prospective randomized controlled study was conducted between September 1, 2017 and January 31, 2018 at Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Education and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. A total of 89 women undergoing elective cesarean were randomized to the study (binder, n=45) or control (no binder, n=44) groups. Patients in the study group were fitted with a binder before leaving the operating room. Mobilization (6-minute walk test), postoperative pain (measured by Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire and Visual Analog Scale), and perceived distress status of both groups were evaluated within 8th (first mobilization time), 24th, and 48th h of surgery. Results: We found that the binder group (BG) walked longer than the control group during the 6-minute walking distance test. At the first mobilization time (postoperative 8th h), the BG (99.4±27.3 m) covered significantly more distance than the control group (81.0±22.2 m) (p=0.001) in the walking distance test. At postoperative 24th h, the McGill pain score in the BG was significantly lower than that in the control group (p=0.004). For all three test times, the Symptom Distress Scale of the BG was lower than that of the control group (postoperative 8th h p=0.024, 24th h p<0.001, and 48th h p<0.001). Conclusion: The evidence is consistent with abdominal binder usage after cesarean section decreasing the feeling of distress and increasing mobility. Cite this article as: Karaca I, Ozturk M, Alay I, et al. Influence of Abdominal Binder Usage after Cesarean Delivery on Postoperative Mobilization, Pain, and Distress: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Eurasian J Med 2019; 51(3): 214-8.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".