Postoperative Voiding Function After Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy with Transvaginal Versus Transabdominal Morcellation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study examined postoperative urinary retention (POUR) rates in patients who had transvaginal or transabdominal morcellation for large fibroids or adenomyotic uteri. Materials and Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted, from January 2015 to April 2021, in a multicenter health care system, in Calgary and Southern Alberta, Canada. The patients were women, ≥18 years, who had total laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation. Women with preexisting urinary retention were excluded. POUR was urinary retention needing an indwelling or in-and-out catheter postoperatively before discharge. Results: There were no differences in POUR for transvaginal (29/139; 20.9%) and transabdominal (12/56; 21.4%) morcellation. There were also no differences in time to first postoperative void (5.5 hours [range: 3.5–8] versus 5.75 hours [range: 4–7.125]); length of stay (23 hours [range: 20.875–25.625] versus 22 hours [range:18.5–24.5]); postoperative urinary tract infections (5.1% versus 3.6%); or visits to the emergency department for POUR postdischarge (1.4% versus 1.8%) for transvaginal and transabdominal morcellation, respectively. The vaginal-morcellation group trended toward increased complication rates during morcellation (7% versus 0%) and urinary complaints at postoperative follow-ups (9.4% versus 0%). Conclusions: Either morcellation type produces similar rates of POUR. Surgeon and patient preferences guide decisions on preferred morcellation routes. Larger prospective trials are needed to further assess POUR, potential for increased complications, and postoperative urinary complaints induced by transvaginal morcellation. (J GYNECOL SURG 20XX:000)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".