Vaginal packing after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy - postoperative pain and satisfaction: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Data concerning effect on early postoperative pain and patient satisfaction after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is lacking. Design: Double-blind randomized controlled trial Setting: Tertiary urogynaecology care centre, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University Population: Women undergoing LSC for stage > 2 pelvic organ prolapse were included. The exclusion criteria were concomitant vaginal surgery including suburethral sling or where vagina was opened during the surgery (including hysterectomy). Women with lost or incompletely filled-in McGill pain questionnaire were additionally excluded from the postoperative pain and satisfaction analysis. Methods: Women were randomized to vaginal packing after LSC with a sterile gauze. The subjective perceptions of pain were measured using McGIll Pain Questionnaire on day one before pack extraction and satisfaction was assessed using VAS on postoperative day 1 and 4. Main outcome measures: Postoperative pain on day after the surgery, patient satisfaction with the surgery and postoperative course on day one and four. Results: In total, 274 women were included in analysis, vaginal pack was inserted in 132 (48%) women. The groups did not differ in basic preoperative nor surgical characteristics. Very low and comparable values of all scores of the McGill Pain Questionnaire were observed (VAS pain 3.2 ±1.8 vs. 3.4±1.9, p=0.330). No difference in patient satisfaction on day one (7.3±1.8 vs. 7.4±1.7, p=0.633) nor overall satisfaction on day 5 (8.7±1.3 vs. 8.8±1.1,p=0.719) was observed. Conclusion: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy is associated with low levels of pain and high patient satisfaction regardless of vaginal pack insertion. Vaginal packing does not harm the patients. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02943525
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".