Incisional Hernia Repair: Laparoscopic or Open? A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Incisional hernia that may occur following abdominal surgeries affect the quality of life and lead to loss of labor by causing morbidity. It is a continuing problem of surgery due to high rates of prevalence and morbidity. This study aimed to compare laparoscopic versus conventional method of incisional hernia repair. Methods: Forty patients with incisional hernia who underwent hernia repair by laparoscopic (n = 20) or conventional (n = 20) technique between January 2010 and January 2011 in our clinic were included in the study . Preoperative, peroperative and postoperative data were collected prospectively, and the patients were followed up for a period of 1 year. Results: No statistical difference was found between two hernia repair groups in terms of age, sex, number of previous abdominal surgery, distribution of incisional hernia and size of the defect. Mean body mass index (BMI) was significantly (P = 0.001) greater in laparoscopic group. No statistical difference was found between two groups in terms of duration of operation, while laparoscopic repair group was significantly advantageous over conventional repair group with regard to pain and discharge time. Complication rates were 15% and 40% in laparoscopic and conventional repair group, respectively. Only one recurrence occurred in either group within 1 year follow-up period. Conclusions: Technological advances in laparoscopic surgery lead to shorter duration of operation, less pain and more rapid discharge from the hospital. It is concluded that lower rate of complication and applicability to obese patients render laparoscopic incisional hernia repair a more reliable and satisfactory technique compared with the conventional technique. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4021/jcs154w
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".