MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402544229 · doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.09.004

Vaginal Packing After Pelvic Floor Reconstructive Surgery: Does the Soaking Agent Used for Packing (Bupivacaine, Estrogen or Saline) Impact Postoperative Pain Scores?

2024· article· en· W4402544229 on OpenAlexafffund
Humara Edell, Xinglin Li, Polina Myrox, Amanda Michael, Courtney J. Jolliffe, T. Abraham, Alex Kiss, Xingshan Cao, Louise-Helene Gagnon, Janet Bodley, Rose Kung, Patricia Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Minimally Invasive Gynecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPelvic floor disorders treatments
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook HospitalSt. Michael's HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersSunnybrook Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineBupivacaineSalineSurgeryPelvic painAnesthesiaReconstructive surgeryEstrogenInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Vaginal packing is traditionally placed after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery (PFRS) to prevent hematoma formation. We seek to determine if there is a difference in postoperative pain scores after PFRS if vaginal packing is soaked with estrogen cream, bupivacaine, or saline. The primary outcome was pain as measured by a visual analog scale at 2 hours, 6 hours, and 1 day postoperatively. Secondary outcomes include changes in hemoglobin, urinary retention and length of stay (LOS) in hospital. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care academic teaching hospital. All PFRS is performed by fellowship-trained urogynecologists. PARTICIPANTS: Consenting patients undergoing PFRS. INTERVENTIONS: At the completion of surgery, gauze packing soaked with either estrogen cream, 0.25% bupivacaine with 1% epinephrine, or normal saline was placed inside the vagina and removed on postoperative day 1. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 210 patients (74 estrogen, 66 bupivacaine, 70 saline). There was no significant difference in mean postoperative pain scores between the groups (estrogen, bupivacaine, saline-soaked vaginal packs respectively) at 2 hours (2.66 ± 2.25, 2.30 ± 2.17, 2.24 ± 2.07; p = .4656), 6 hours (2.99 ± 2.38, 2.52 ± 2.30, 2.36 ± 2.01; p = .2181) or on postoperative day 1 (1.89 ± 2.01 vs 2.08 ± 2.15 vs 2.44 ± 2.19; p = .2832) as measured by visual analog scale scores (0-10). There was no difference in the secondary outcomes of change in pre/postoperative hemoglobin (21.8 ± 10.73g/L, 20.09 ± 11.55 g/L, 21.7 ± 9.62g/L, p = .68), urinary retention (37%, 45% and 48%, p = .45), LOS (1.05 ± 0.46 days, 1.02 ± 0.12, 1.03 ± 0.24, p = .97) or in-hospital opioid usage during admission (represented in morphine milligram equivalents [median (IQR1, IQR3)], Kruskal-Wallis test): 11.25 mg (0, 33), 7.5 mg (0, 22.5) and 15 mg (0, 33.88) p = .41. CONCLUSION: There was no difference found between soaking vaginal packing with estrogen cream, bupivacaine, or saline after PFRS with respect to postoperative pain scores, LOS, in-hospital opioid usage, or urinary retention. Saline-soaked packing is an equivalent alternative to estrogen or bupivacaine vaginal packing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Minimally Invasive GynecologySame topicPelvic floor disorders treatmentsFrench-language works237,207