Mid-term results of pelvic organ prolapse repair using a transvaginal mesh: the experience in Sherbrooke, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:The objective was to report our experience on the implantation of the Prolift system since 2005.Methods: Fifty-six patients were operated on between July 2005 and August 2008 by 1 surgeon.The patients were implanted with the transvaginal mesh, the Prolift system, for the treatment of recurrent or high-grade (Baden-Walker stage III or IV) multiple compartment pelvic organ prolapse (POP) associated with symptoms.A concomitant anti-incontinence surgery was performed in 38 patients (68%). Results:The population had a mean age of 68 (range 46-88), a body mass index of 27 (range 21-40) and a parity average of 3 (range 1-16).Previous POP repair had been performed in 17 patients (30%) and a hysterectomy in 43 (77%).The operating room time was on average 98 minutes (range 70-135), blood loss 81 mL (range 50-300) and hospital stay 3 days (range 1-10).With a median follow-up of 21 months, we found that the cure rate for POP was 91% (48/53) and the reoperation rate was 8% (4/53).Perioperative complications included 1 rectal laceration and 1 prolonged bleeding.Short-term postoperative complications included 10 episodes of transient urinary retention that required immediate tape release in 4 patients.Long-term complications included 5 POP recurrences, 2 low grade and 3 high grade. Conclusion:The Prolift system appears to be a relatively safe and effective alternative to conventional surgeries for the treatment of recurrent or high-grade multiple compartment POP, because of a high mid-term cure rate and a satisfactory complication profile.However, long-term follow-up is still needed to confirm these results. RésuméObjectif : Notre objectif ici est de parler de notre expérience avec l'implantation du système Prolift depuis 2005.Méthodologie : Entre
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".