The Feasibility of Adopting Laparoscopic Incisional Hernia Repair in General Surgery Practice: Early Outcomes in an Unselected Series of Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A laparoscopic approach to incisional hernia repair has been shown to be safe and effective in selected patients. We report our early outcomes following laparoscopic ventral/incisional hernia repair (LVHR) in an unselected series of patients encountered in general surgery practice. All patients referred with incisional hernia were offered a laparoscopic repair using prosthetic mesh. Patients were not excluded from laparoscopic approach on the basis of age, previous surgery, defect size, intraperitoneal mesh, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, or abdominal wall stomas. We followed 28 consecutive patients who underwent LVHR (17 primary, 11 recurrent hernias). Laparoscopic repair was completed in 27 patients with a mean operative time of 141.6 +/- 11.9 minutes. There were no intraoperative complications. The mean size of the abdominal wall defects was 153.4 +/- 27.5 cm and the mean mesh size was 349.2 +/- 59.1 cm. The mean hospital stay was 3.7 +/- 0.3 days. Nine patients developed large wound seromas; all spontaneously resolved. Our experience suggests that LVHR is feasible as a primary approach to most incisional hernias encountered in general surgery practice.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".