MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185351187

Characterizing laparoscopic incisional hernia repair.

2007· article· en· W2185351187 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel W. Birch

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPerioperativeIncisional herniaHerniaBody mass indexLaparoscopySurgical meshAbdominal wallHernia repairAbdominal surgeryGeneral surgeryInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Laparoscopic repair of ventral and incisional hernias (LVIHRs) is feasible; however, many facets of this procedure remain poorly defined. The indications, essential technical features and postoperative management should be standardized to optimize outcomes and facilitate training in this promising approach to incisional hernia repair. METHODS: All patients referred to one surgeon at a tertiary care centre for LVIHR from 1999 to 2004 were analyzed. Patient records were analyzed and perioperative outcomes were documented. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients who were referred for management of incisional hernia, 64 underwent LVIHR. The mean age of patients selected for surgery was 61.4 years (28% of patients over age 70 years); their mean body mass index (BMI) was 32.8 kg/m2 and mean American Association of Anaesthetists (ASA) score was 2.5 (52% of patients had an ASA score equal to 3). The mean operating time was 130.7 minutes for a mean abdominal wall defect of 123.9 cm2 and a mean prosthetic mesh size of 344 cm2. Patients with recurrent incisional hernias and previous prosthetic mesh were the most challenging, with a mean BMI of 39 kg/m2, mean operating time of 191 minutes, mean defect of 224 cm2 and mean prosthetic mesh size of 508 cm2. One patient was converted to open surgery and, in 2 patients, small bowel injuries were repaired laparoscopically without adverse sequelae. The mean length of stay was 4.5 days (median 3.0 d). Postoperatively, 78% of patients developed seromas within the residual hernia sac. All seromas were managed nonoperatively; one-half resolved by 7 weeks, and larger seromas persisted for up to 24 weeks. There was an 18.7% rate of minor complications and a 3.1% rate of major complications (no deaths). After a mean follow-up of 7.7 months, 2 recurrent hernias (3.1%) were identified in patients with multiple previous open mesh repairs. CONCLUSION: Although LVIHR may be challenging, it has the potential to be considered a primary approach for most ventral and incisional hernias, regardless of patient status or hernia complexity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207