The International Pediatric Endosurgery Group Evidence-Based Guideline on Minimal Access Approaches to the Operative Management of Inguinal Hernia in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for inguinal hernia repair (IHR) in children has been reported for more than two decades. The International Pediatric Endosurgery Group (IPEG) Evidence-Based Review Committee chose MIS IHR as the inaugural topic for review and presentation at the 2016 IPEG annual meeting. Materials and Methods: English language articles published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, were reviewed and included in this evidence-based review after searching PubMed, Cochrane Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov , Google Scholar, and EMBASE. Results: Level 1a and 1b evidence supports the recommendations that operative time for bilateral IHRs should be considered shorter and postoperative complications rates should be considered lower in MIS repair over open. Recurrence rates are similar between the two methods (level 1a and 1b evidence). No level 1 evidence exists to support one MIS technique over another or that operating on a detected contralateral patent processus vaginalis during laparoscopy makes any difference in long-term outcome to the patient. Conclusions: The advantages of lower postoperative complications and shorter operative times have been found in studies of surgeons experienced in MIS repair and differences were small. The evidence in this review supports that MIS repair is a safe, effective method of IHR with proper training and mentorship.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".