Key Anatomical Concepts, Landmarks, and Proposed Terminology for Nerve-Sparing Gynecologic Surgery: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the terminology utilized in nerve-sparing surgical literature and propose standardized and nonconflicting terms to allow for consistent vocabulary. DESIGN: We performed a literature search on PubMed using the search terms "pelvis" and "nerve-sparing." Nongynecologic surgery and animal studies were excluded. A narrative review was performed, focusing on nerves, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces. Terms from included papers were discussed by all authors, who are surgeons versed in nerve-sparing procedures and one anatomist, and recommendations were made regarding the most appropriate terms based on the frequency of occurrence in the literature and the possibility of overlapping names with other structures. RESULTS: 224 articles were identified, with 81 included in the full-text review. Overall, 48% of articles focused on cervical cancer and 26% on deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Findings were synthesized both narratively and visually. Inconsistencies in pelvic anatomical nomenclature were prevalent across publications. The structure with the most varied terminology was the rectal branch of the inferior hypogastric plexus with 14 names. A standardized terminology for pelvic autonomic nerve structures, fasciae, ligaments, and retroperitoneal spaces was proposed to avoid conflicting terms. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and anatomists should use consistent terminology to facilitate increased uptake of nerve-sparing techniques in gynecologic surgery through a better understanding of surgical technique description. We have proposed a standardized terminology believed to facilitate this goal.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".