Transabdominal Ultrasound-Guided Tube Drainage of Pelvic Collection Following Obstetrics and Gynecological Surgery: Is It Safe and Effective?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are some difficulties with transabdominal (TA) ultrasound (US)-guided drainage with the development of different methods of drainage (transvaginal). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of TA US-guided drainage of pelvic fluid collection after gynecologic and obstetric surgeries. Methods: We conducted this study on patients with postoperative pelvic fluid collections following gynecologic or obstetric surgery. We examined the cases at our Obstetrics and Gynecology Department in collaboration with the Radiology Department at the Gastroenterology Center over 12 months. We used imaging for the diagnosis of clinically symptomatic postoperative pelvic collection. All women underwent TA US-guided drainage by a standardized protocol. We monitored patients for at least 4 to 6 weeks and judged their outcomes according to the definitions of success and failure. We analyzed patient demographics, US, and clinical characteristics of the collection for their effects on clinical success. Results: We had included 52 patients in the study. The number of resolved cases after US-guided intervention was 88%, while the number of failed cases was 12%. We observed no statistically significant association between outcome and onset after operation, duration before admission after onset, time of hospital admission after operation, and time of intervention after diagnosis. There was no statistically significant association between the outcome and US findings and the nature and culture of aspirated fluid. The presence of associated comorbidities significantly affects the success of the procedure. Conclusions: TA US-guided drainage of pelvic fluid collections is effective and safe in women's management with infected pelvic fluid collections. The presence of comorbidities in the cases may interfere with the resolution of the abscess and failure of the procedure. J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2023;12(3):78-83 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcgo903
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".