Inguinal Mesh Hernioplasties: A Rural Private Clinic Experience in South Eastern Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to review hernioplasties done for inguinal hernias in a rural private hospital, bringing out the socio-demographic and clinical pattern and to sensitize surgeons and family physicians in our environment about the possibility of making hernioplasty a standard of care for inguinal hernias. METHOD: The records of seventy seven patients operated in a rural private hospital were reviewed. Socio-demographic data, operative techniques and post-operative outcomes were documented. The results were compared with relevant findings in the literature. RESULTS: Eighty one Lichtenstein procedures were done, of which four were bilateral. Polypropylene mesh was used in all cases. A total of three patients (3.9%) had early post-operative complications. The complications were scrotal haematoma, haematoma complicated by wound sepsis and wound sepsis only. All the complications were successfully managed. There was no case of mesh removal or mortality. CONCLUSION: Early post-operative results suggest that mesh hernioplasty is in rural communities of West Africa, given the availability of mesh, basic medical infrastructure and relevant skilled manpower.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".