Primary laparoscopic and open repair of paraesophageal hernias: a comparison of short-term outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The choice of the optimal surgical approach for repairing paraesophaeal hernias (PEH) is debated. Our objective is to evaluate the short-term outcomes of primary laparoscopic and open repairs of PEH performed in the Calgary Health Region. A retrospective review of all patients undergoing repair of PEH between October 1999 and February 2005 was performed. The outcome measures evaluated included intra-operative parameters and post-operative variables, mortality rates, recurrence rates and patient satisfaction. A total of 93 patients underwent either a laparoscopic (n = 46) or open (n = 47) primary PEH repair. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a longer mean operative time (3.1 +/- 1.2 hours vs. 2.5 +/- 0.7 hours, P = 0.005) but resulted in a shorter overall hospital stay (5 days [2-16 days]vs. 10 days [5-24 days]; P < 0.001), and fewer post-operative complications (10/46 [22%]vs. 25/47 [53%]P = 0.002). Although the follow-up was short (laparoscopic 16 months; open 18 months), a 9% recurrence rate was reported with both approaches. Patient satisfaction using the Gastroesophageal Disease Health-Related Quality Of Life questionnaire was similar in both groups (P = 0.861) with most patients reporting excellent outcomes (laparoscopic: 32/36 [89%]; open 27/35 [77%]). Our review suggests that the laparoscopic approach is safe with shorter hospital stay and recovery. Although early follow-up suggests that recurrence rates and patient satisfaction are similar, long-term follow-up is required to determine whether the laparoscopic approach will become the procedure of choice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".