Diagnosis and treatment of abdominally inserted (sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy) mesh complications for vault/uterine prolapse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sacrohysteropexy and sacrocolpopexy are established treatments of uterine or vaginal vault prolapse respectively and involve insertion of mesh abdominally, often using permanent sutures and fixation devices. Complications following these procedures may be serious, and there is lack of evidence about long-term functional outcomes in terms of pain, dyspareunia and development of lower urinary tract and bowel symptoms. A non-systematic review of the available literature was performed and recommendations on assessment and management were developed by expert consensus. The current evidence is limited in quantity and quality, and recommendations on assessment management of mesh-related complications were made by experts in the field. Assessment and treatment of complications following abdominally placed mesh for pelvic organ prolapse will often require a multidisciplinary approach. Assessment may require EUA, and/or cystourethroscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and laparoscopy. MRI is the most useful imaging modality. Surgery to remove mesh carries a risk of urinary tract and bowel injury, as well as development of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. A joint decision between the surgeon and the patient should be made before embarking on a partial removal of mesh; removal of all the mesh may be a better option albeit with higher risk of surgical complications. Complete removal of mesh and tacks or sutures from the sacral attachment may not be possible and is associated with risk of major haemorrhage.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".