Open Versus Laparoscopic Approach for Morgagni's Hernia in Infants and Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The laparoscopic repair of Morgagni's hernia (MH) has been reported to be safe and feasible. However, it is still unclear whether laparoscopy is superior to open surgery in repairing MH. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a defined search strategy, three investigators independently identified all comparative studies reporting data on open and laparoscopic MH repair in patients <18 years of age. Case reports and opinion articles were excluded. Meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and using RevMan 5.3. Data are expressed as mean ± SD. RESULTS: Systematic review - Of 774 titles/abstracts screened, 51 full-text articles were analyzed. Three studies were included (92 patients), with 53 (58%) open approaches and 39 (42%) laparoscopy. Meta-analysis - The length of surgery was shorter in laparoscopy (50.5 ± 17.0 min) than in open procedure (90.0 ± 15.0 min; P < .00001). Laparoscopy shortened the length of hospital stay (2.1 ± 1.4 days) versus open surgery (4.5 ± 2.1 days; P < .00001). There was no difference with regards to complications (laparoscopy: 8.8% ± 5.5%, open: 9.4% ± 1.6%; P = .087) and recurrences (laparoscopy: 2.9% ± 5.0%, open: 5.7% ± 1.8%; P = .84). DISCUSSION: Comparative studies indicate that laparoscopic MH repair can be performed in infants and children. Laparoscopy is associated with shortened length of surgery and hospital stay in comparison to open procedure. Prospective randomized studies would be needed to confirm present data.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".