Laparoscopic Repair of Inguinal Hernias with Higher Risk for Recurrence: Independent Assessment of Results from 121 Repairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempts to determine by independent review the results of laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) inguinal hernia repair for hernias with increased risk for recurrence. Indicators used for increased recurrence risk were recurrent hernias or simultaneously repaired bilateral inguinal hernias. Office and hospital records of all such patients who had undergone TAPP repair were reviewed from one surgeon's 242-patient laparoscopic inguinal hernia database from 1992 to 1998. All were called for assessment by an independent surgeon at least 4 months postoperatively (median 34 months). Those unable to come in person were interviewed by telephone. There were 121 hernias: 34 recurrent and 100 bilateral (13 overlap). Recurrence rate was 3 per cent, which was similar for repair of bilateral and recurrent hernias. All recurrences occurred within 3 months of surgery. No unknown recurrence was detected by the independent observer. Laparoscopic TAPP inguinal hernia repair, often claimed as the method of choice for bilateral and recurrent hernia repair, is indeed a safe and effective procedure with a low early recurrent rate in these higher-risk situations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".