Transobturator tape: variation in the vascular anatomy of the obturator foramen.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: 1) To describe the anatomy of the obturator canal and variations in placement of the obturator nerve, artery and vein and 2) To record the proximity of these structures to the optimal point of placement of the transobturator tape (TOT) trochar. METHODS: Eighteen obturator foramens were dissected in nine female cadavers. The obturator nerve, artery and vein were exposed as they entered the foramen. Orientation of the obturator nerve, artery and vein from medial to lateral were recorded. Obturator arterial and venous branches > 1 mm crossing the obturator membrane were noted. Usual placement of the TOT trochar as it passes through the obturator membrane to the obturator canal was determined and the distance from the trochar to each of the structures was recorded. RESULTS: The medial to lateral orientations of the obturator nerve, artery and vein are variable where these structures enter the obturator canal. The vein appeared most medially in 78% of cadavers and the artery in 22%. The nerve was located most lateral in all cases. Venous (22%) and arterial (17%) branches of the obturator vessels traversed medially across the obturator membrane towards the side of trochar placement. The mean distance from optimal trochar placement to the obturator canal was 30 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomy of the obturator foramen is not consistent. The proximity of the obturator canal to the TOT trochar, the medially crossing obturator nerve, artery and vein and their branches, as well as their variable orientation in the canal should be considered when performing the transobturator tape procedure.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".