Evidence supporting laparoscopic hernia repair in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pediatric inguinal hernias are a commonly performed surgical procedure. Currently, they can be approached via open or laparoscopic surgery. We summarize the current evidence for laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs in children. RECENT FINDINGS: Laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair in children are associated with similar operative times for unilateral hernia, as well as similar cosmesis, complication rates and recurrence rates. Bilateral hernia repair has been shown to be faster through a laparoscopic approach. The laparoscopic approach is associated with decreased pain scores and earlier recovery, although only in the initial postoperative period. Laparoscopy allows for easy evaluation of the patency of contralateral processus vaginalis, although the clinical significance of and need for repair of an identified defect is unclear. SUMMARY: Laparoscopic surgery for pediatric inguinal hernias offers some advantages over open repair with most outcomes being equal. It should be considered a safe alternative to open repair to children and their caregivers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".