Management of Giant Ventral Hernia by Polypropylene Mesh and Host Tissue Barrier: Trial of Simplification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical management of giant ventral hernias is a surgical challenge due to limited abdominal cavity. This study evaluates management of giant ventral hernias using polypropylene mesh and host tissue barrier after suitable preoperative preparation. METHODS: In the period from January 2005 and January 2007, 35 patients with giant ventral hernias underwent hernia repair. After careful preoperative preparation, repair was done using polypropylene mesh. The mesh was separated from the viscera by a small part of the hernia sac and the greater omentum. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 52. Twenty patients had post-operative incisional and 15 had para-umbilical hernias. The mean hernia defect size was 16.8 cm. Mean body mass index was 33. Follow up ranged from 18-36 months. No patient required ventilation after operation. Recurrent seroma, which responded to repeated aspiration, was experienced in 4 patients. Minor wound infection was observed in 5 patients. Small hernia recurrence occurred in one patient. CONCLUSION: The use of polypropylene and host tissue barrier after suitable preoperative preparation is relatively simple, safe, and reliable surgical solution to the problem of giant ventral hernia. KEYWORDS: Hernia repair; Giant ventral hernia; Polypropylene mesh.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".