Prophylactic internal iliac artery ligation versus balloon occlusion for placenta accreta spectrum disorders: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare surgical outcomes between women undergoing prophylactic internal iliac artery ligation or preoperative placement of balloon-occlusive devices at cesarean hysterectomy for placenta accreta spectrum (PAS) disorders. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-care referral center for PAS disorders in Ontario, Canada. Eligible electronic records were reviewed of women undergoing cesarean hysterectomy for PAS disorders between November 2012 and June 2018. Outcomes for the ligation and balloon groups were compared primarily on procedure-related complications and secondarily on total procedure time, bleeding and transfusion metrics, and intraoperative and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Of the 79 cases of cesarean hysterectomy, 47 underwent balloon placement and 32 underwent ligation. Baseline characteristics between the groups were similar except for more emergency procedures in the ligation group (37.5% vs 12.8%, P=0.014). The balloon-related complication rate was 5/47 (10.6%), with no reported complications in the ligation group (P=0.077). Procedural time was longer in the balloon group (353 ± 14 vs 227 ± 13 minutes, P<0.001). Estimated blood loss was similar (1874 ± 245 mL vs 1713 ± 181 mL, P=0.590). CONCLUSION: Women undergoing prophylactic placement of endovascular balloons at caesarean hysterectomy for PAS disorders had a 10.6% procedure-related complication rate and increased total procedure time, with no decrease in blood loss compared to those undergoing surgical ligation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".