Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing open and laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair with mesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernia repair has been reported in a number of small trials to have equivalent or superior outcomes to open repair. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic and open incisional or ventral hernia repair with mesh that included data on effectiveness and safety were included in a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference between groups in hernia recurrence rates (relative risk 1.02 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.41 to 2.54)). Duration of surgery varied. Mean length of hospital stay was shorter after laparoscopic repair in six of the included studies; the longest mean stay was 5.7 days for laparoscopic and 10 days for open surgery. Laparoscopic hernia repair was associated with fewer wound infections (relative risk 0.22 (95 per cent c.i. 0.09 to 0.54)), and a trend toward fewer haemorrhagic complications and infections requiring mesh removal. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernia is at least as effective, if not superior to, the open approach in a number of outcomes.
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 | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".