Overlapping Compared With End-to-End Repair of Third- and Fourth-Degree Obstetric Anal Sphincter Tears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare overlapping repair with end-to-end repair of obstetric tears and to investigate which procedure results in a higher rate of flatal incontinence. METHODS: One-hundred forty-nine primiparous women sustaining a complete third- or a fourth-degree tear of the perineum were assigned randomly to a primary sphincter repair using either an end-to-end (n=75) or an overlapping surgical technique (n=74) using 3-0 polyglyconate. Outcome measures at 6 months included rates of flatal and fecal incontinence, quality-of-life scores, integrity of the internal and external anal sphincters by anal ultrasonography, and anal sphincter function as reflected by anal manometry. RESULTS: Women who underwent overlapping repair compared with end-to-end repair had higher rates of flatal incontinence, 61% compared with 39% (odds ratio [OR] 2.44, confidence interval [CI] 1.2-5.0). The rate of fecal incontinence was also higher, 15% compared with 8% (OR 1.97, CI 0.62-6.3) but did not attain statistical significance. Rates of internal and external anal sphincter defects did not differ significantly between groups and did not correlate with anal incontinence symptoms. Fecal incontinence was higher when there was a defect in both sphincter muscles. Anal sphincter function as assessed by manometry did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: End-to-end repair of third- or fourth-degree obstetric anal sphincter tears is associated with lower rates of anal incontinence when compared with overlapping repair. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, isrctn.org, ISRCTN04149919. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".