Incisional hernia postrepair of abdominal aortic occlusive and aneurysmal disease: five-year incidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to report the five-year incidence of incisional hernia after vascular repair of abdominal aortic occlusive (AOD) and aneurysmal disease (AAA), and to determine the factors associated with the development of this complication. Consecutive patients who underwent AAA and AOD at the University of Manitoba, Canada, between January 1999 and December 2002, were recruited and evaluated by clinical examination one week, one month and six months after the surgery, and through medical records review thereafter. The development of postoperative incisional hernia was recorded and analyzed. Two-hundred four patients, with a mean age of 70.1 years, provided consent for the study. The overall five-year incidence of incisional hernia was 69.1% and the overall median failure time was 48 months. The median failure time was 48 months for AOD and 36 months for AAA (P < 0.01). The urgent and ruptured AAA repair had a higher five-year incidence of incisional hernia as compared with AOD or elective AAA repair (P < 0.01). A history of bilateral inguinal hernia was significantly associated with incisional hernia (P < 0.05). Men and patients who were 65 years and older had a higher five-year incidence of incisional hernia (P < 0.01). Age ≥65 years, male gender, hypertension and past bilateral inguinal hernia repair double the risk for the development of incisional hernia (hazard ratio = 2.1. 2.2, 1.7 and 2.8, respectively). In conclusion, the five-year incidence of incisional hernia after vascular repair of AOD or AAA is 69.1%, and tends to occur late after vascular 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".