MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2206161995 · doi:10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.10.031

Laparoscopic repair of an incarcerated femoral hernia

2015· article· en· W2206161995 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yagan Pillay

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surgery Case Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsPrince Albert Grand Council
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFemoral herniaGroinSurgeryHernia repairInguinal herniaHerniaLaparoscopyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: A femoral hernia is a rare, acquired condition, which has been reported in less than 5% of all abdominal wall hernias, with a female to male ratio of 4:1. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We report a case in a female patient who had a previous open inguinal herniorrhaphy three years previously. She presented with right sided groin pain of one month duration. Ultrasound gave a differential diagnosis of a recurrent inguinal hernia or a femoral hernia. A transabdominal preperitoneal repair was performed and the patient made an uneventful recovery. DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic repair of a femoral hernia is still in its infancy and even though the outcomes are superior to an open repair, open surgery remains the standard of care. The decision to perform a laparoscopic trans abdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) repair was facilitated by the patient having previous open hernia surgery. The learning curve for laparoscopic femoral hernia repair is steep and requires great commitment from the surgeon. Once the learning curve has been breached this is a feasible method of surgical repair. This is demonstrated by the fact that this case report is from a rural hospital in Canada. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic femoral hernia repair involves more time and specialized laparoscopic skills. The advantages are a lower recurrence rate and lower incidence of inguinodynia.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surgery Case ReportsSame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207