The Value of Laparoscopy in the Management of Abdominoscrotal Hydroceles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Abdominoscrotal hydroceles (ASH) represent a difficult surgical problem in which a large scrotal hydrocele extends through the inguinal canal into the intraabdominal, extraperitoneal space, creating a widened internal ring that may be associated with an inguinal hernia. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients with ASH were repaired using a combined laparoscopic-inguinal approach. Laparoscopic exploration was used to confirm the diagnosis, rule out associated hernia, assess for contralateral pathology, and confirm adequate peritoneal closure at the level of the internal ring, after a standard inguinal approach was used to repair the ASH. RESULTS: Eight patients are described with a median age of 13 months. One patient presented with bilateral ASH, and 5 patients had contralateral pathology, including simple hydrocele (n=3), undescended testicle (n=1), and inguinal hernia (n=2). Three patients were confirmed to have an ipsilateral inguinal hernia associated with their ASH. Postoperative complications included hematoma (n=2) and recurrent hydrocele (n=1). No patient developed ipsilateral or contralateral hernias following ASH repair (median follow-up, 3.2 years). CONCLUSIONS: Although laparoscopy is not essential, we have found it to be a useful adjunct to ensure accurate diagnosis and repair of abdominoscrotal hydroceles in children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".