Complications After Vaginal Vault Suspension Versus Minimally Invasive Sacrocolpopexy in Women With Elevated Body Mass Index: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using Data From the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Overweight and obese women represent a growing share of pelvic floor reconstruction surgeons' practices. Determining perioperative risk specific to this population is essential to inform decision making regarding operative approach in this population. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare surgical complications among overweight and obese women undergoing apical compartment prolapse surgery by either minimally invasive abdominal or vaginal approach. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Database was used to identify overweight and obese patients (body mass index ≥ 25) undergoing either minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) or vaginal vault suspension (VVS) in the form of a sacrospinous vault fixation or uterosacral ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse from 2012 to 2019. Odds ratios for surgical complications, readmission, and reoperation were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 8,990 eligible patients, 5,851 underwent a VVS and 3,139 patients underwent MISC. There was a greater odds of any complication in the first 30 days following VVS (n = 608 [10.4%]) compared with MISC (n = 247 [7.9%]; odds ratio, 1.27; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) on multivariable analysis. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) were the most common complication and were more likely following VVS (112 (3.6%) versus 350 (6.0%), P < 0.001). When UTIs were excluded, there was no difference in complications between approaches (1.00; 95% CI, 0.82-1.22). There were no statistically significant odds of readmission, reoperation, or serious complications between approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal vault suspension may be associated with a higher odds of any complication compared with MISC in overweight and obese women, but the rate of serious complications, readmission, and reoperation are low, and approaches were comparable when considering complications other than UTI.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".