No Need of Fascia Closure to Reduce Trocar Site Hernia Rate in Laparoscopic Surgery: A Prospective Study of 200 Non-Obese Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely practiced and offers realistic benefits over conventional surgery. Port closure is important after a laparoscopic procedure to prevent port site incisional hernia. Larger port size and increasing numbers of ports needed to perform more complex laparoscopic procedures are likely to increase the incidence of port site hernias (PSHs). PSHs tend to develop more frequently at umbilical and midline port sites due to the thinness of the umbilical skin and weaknesses in the linea alba. More than 90% of PSHs occur through 10 mm and large ports can occur through 5 mm ports also. The aim was to study the outcomes and complications in laparoscopic surgery without fascial sheath closure of port site. We compared the results with another group in which fascial closure was done by a standard method. METHODS: This was a prospective study carried out in the Department of Surgery, MMIMSR, Mullana, Ambala, from August 2013 to 2015 in a single unit by a single surgeon. A total of 200 patients were selected randomly for the different laparoscopic procedures. Patients were divided into group A (only skin closure was done without fascia closure) and group B (fascial closure of the port in addition to skin closure). In both groups, we used blunt trocar for the 10 mm port. Skin of the 5 mm port was closed simply. The results in two groups were compared in terms of complications like PSH, bleeding, and wound infection. RESULTS: The outcomes in two groups were compared with and without fascia closure of 10 mm trocar port site. Patients operated for lap cholecystectomy were 170 (85%), 10 (5%) for lap appendicectomy, and 20 (10%) for lap hernia. The study compared the results in two groups mainly for PSH formation. The P value was insignificant and Fischer's exact test result came as 1.00. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of PSH, bleeding and infection in non-obese cases. CONCLUSION: In both groups, blunt trocar was introduced into the abdomen. We concluded that this is safe, without visceral injury, and no bleeding was seen in both the groups. We had not encountered any case with PSH formation in follow-up of 6 - 8 months. There was no infection over the port site.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".