Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between Mar. 13 and Sept. 16, 1991, the authors performed 10 inguinal herniorrhaphies laparoscopically. Two patients with a type II hernia (indirect with dilated internal ring but intact posterior inguinal wall) had laparoscopic preperitoneal closure of the internal ring with interrupted 0-Prolene. Seven patients had a type IIIA hernia (direct), and one patient had a large type IIIB hernia (indirect with dilated internal ring and medial encroachment or destruction of transversalis fascia of Hesselbach triangle). They all underwent laparoscopic preperitoneal placement of Prolene mesh, which was fixed in place with interrupted 0-Prolene sutures. All patients recovered promptly, with less pain and minimal limping, resulting in high patient acceptance of the procedure. There were no complications. Although no recurrence was noted and the technique appears sound, it is too early to predict its long-term success. At present, the preperitoneal approach is difficult to perform because of lack of appropriate instrumentation. The surgeon who plans to perform such a procedure must be familiar with the anatomy. We suggest that every potential candidate for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair should be apprised of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach. A research consent form should be read and signed by every patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".