Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the Bassini and the Mac Vay techniques, the Shouldice operation became the gold standard, due to the low recurrence rate (1%), published by the surgeons of Toronto. Nevertheless some studies, with more rigorous evaluation, demonstrated an actual 5-6% recurrence rate. Consequently the tension-free prosthetic hernioplasties, which yielded a lower recurrence rate (1-3%) and reduced postoperative pain, have superseded the Shouldice as the method of choice. The techniques consisting of placement of the patch in the preperitoneal space (Rives, Stoppa) offer two benefits: the patch is applied to the abdominal wall by intra-abdominal pressure and reinforces all the weak points of the groin. Nevertheless the onlay-patch technique of Lichtenstein is today the reference method because it is the easiest to learn and to reproduce. The endoscopic techniques (TAPP and TEP), which associate the advantages of the preperitoneal patch and miniinvasiveness, might have constituted the ideal method. But they are not used by a majority of surgeons because, due to their technical difficulty, they entail a higher risk of complications and recurrences when the surgeons are not experts. Some other methods -the Plug and the PHS- which associate the preperitoneal and the superficial components, under direct approach, are widely used. Finally the Polysoft patch, which was introduced more recently, associates the advantages of preperitoneal location of the patch and the anterior approach, feasible under local anesthesia. Many studies have indeed emphasized the higher risk of chronic pain with open surgery compared to laparoscopy, which is attributable to the location of the patch and according to some other, local anesthesia might be the best method of anesthesia for inguinal hernia repair. Mots cles hernie inguinale protheses preperitoneales laparoscopie Polysoft Lichtenstein
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".