A study on comparison of retromuscular prefascial placement of mesh versus other methods of mesh placement in repair of ventral hernias.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ventral hernias repair are most routinely performed procedure in daily life of general surgeons. The objective of the present study is to compare the outcome of retromuscular repair over other methods of ventral hernia repair.90 diagnosed cases of ventral hernias were randomly split into two groups A (retromuscular meshplasty) and B(onlay, inlay & underlay meshplasty). The comparison across groups were carried out in terms of operation length, postoperative pain, wound complications, length of hospital stay & recurrence. No difference was found between the groups regarding age, gender, type and classification of hernia. Operation length was 110min in retromuscular repair and 90min in onlay and 114min underlay method. Statistically difference was seen between these groups. Among complications recurrence, seroma, mesh infection and wound complications were seen in group B. Postoperative pain and well being score were better in retromuscular group. Retromuscular meshplasty have more advantage compare to other open methods in ventral hernia repair.Retromuscular meshplasty is still most appropriate method in open ventral hernia 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".