A case report of a double port site hernia and their laparoscopic repair with intra corporeal suturing of the hernia necks and an underlay mesh repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Port site hernias (PSH) are a potential postoperative complication in laparoscopic surgery. It is difficult to estimate their true incidence given the descrepancy in published reports. PRESENTATION OF CASE: This is a case report of a 42-year-old lady who developed two separate PSH requiring a laparoscopic repair. This is also the first reported case of multiple PSH in a single patient in the English literature. DISCUSSION: This report highlights the need for further research in establishing well defined incidence rates in order to properly discuss future surgical risks when consenting a patient for laparoscopic surgery. It is our belief that future research should be directed towards determining the risk associated with different trocar types, in the setting of various premorbid patient factors, to help surgeons decide on relevant instrument use and the most appropriate closure for port sites. CONCLUSION: The growing incidence of PSH has brought about significant changes in the practice of laparoscopic surgery which behoves us as practicing clinicians to stay abreast of these changes so as to decrease the incidence of PSH.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".