Traumatic Abdominal Wall Hernia: Epidemiology and Clinical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWHs) are uncommon, and it remains controversial whether such patients require urgent laparotomy. As such, this study was undertaken to assess the clinical sequelae of operative versus nonoperative management of TAWH, and whether certain patient or injury characteristics are predictive of the need for early surgery. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients presenting acutely with a TAWH at a Regional Trauma Center from January 2000 to December 2004. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were identified (age 39 +/- 12 years; Injury Severity Score 31 +/- 13). The most frequent mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (MVC; 24 cases), followed by motorcycle collision (6) and falls (4). The diagnosis of a TAWH was made primarily by computed tomography scan. Overall, 19 patients underwent urgent laparotomy or laparoscopy (56%) and 15 patients required bowel resection (44%). TAWH secondary to a MVC more frequently required urgent laparotomy and bowel resection than other mechanisms (p < 0.05). All three patients with clinically apparent anterior TAWH had intra-abdominal injuries and required urgent laparotomy. Only eight patients (24%) had their TAWH repaired acutely. At follow-up, two patients managed nonoperatively had symptomatic hernias, and three patients that had had an early repair had developed recurrent hernias. CONCLUSIONS: First, the mechanism of injury should be considered when deciding if a patient with a TAWH needs an urgent laparotomy. Clinically apparent anterior TAWHs appear to have a high rate of associated injuries requiring urgent laparotomy. Finally, occult TAWHs diagnosed only by computed tomography may not require urgent laparotomy or hernia repair.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".