Laparoscopic Percutaneous Extraperitoneal Closure of the Internal Ring in Pediatric Recurrent Inguinal Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Laparoscopic repair has become the preferred option for the treatment of pediatric hernias. Recently, laparoscopic operations have also been conducted in pediatric recurrent hernia cases. Laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) is a simple and reliable minimally invasive procedure for pediatric inguinal hernia repair. However, it is still unclear whether LPEC is an ideal procedure for recurrent inguinal hernias in children. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of LPEC in the treatment of pediatric recurrent inguinal hernias. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all children with primary inguinal hernia repairs in our hospital from 2016 to 2017 and analyzed the outcomes of recurrent inguinal hernia repairs with LPEC. Results: There were 1703 children with 1985 indirect inguinal hernias: 1549 were laparoscopic (91.0%) and 154 open (9.0%). Thirty-five (2.1%) of these children had recurrent inguinal hernia with no difference in prevalence between laparoscopic and open ( P = .24). One case was bilateral. LPEC was performed successfully in all children with recurrent inguinal hernias. There were no severe intra- or postoperative complications in any of the recurrent cases. No children had inguinal hernia recurrence at follow-up (8 months–2 years). Conclusions: LPEC of the internal ring is a reliable and effective minimally invasive technique for the treatment of recurrent inguinal hernia in children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".