A Randomized Trial. Comparing Herniorrafia Modifield Desarda Repair and Hernioplastia Lichtenstein Repair for Inguinal Hernia (Study of 1242 Patients)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction:The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of Modified Desarda repair no mesh and Lichtenstein repair for inguinal hernia.Patients and Methods: This is a prospective randomized controlled trial study of 1242 patients having 1313 hernias operated from January 2008 to December 2018.640 patients were operated using Lichtenstein repair and 602 using Desarda repair.The variables like age, sex, location, type of hernia, tolerance to local anesthesia, duration of surgery, pain on the first, third and fifth day, hospital stay, complications, re-explorations, morbidity and time to return to normal activities were analyzed.Follow up period was from 1-10 years (median 6.5 years).Results: There were no significant differences regarding age, sex, location, type of hernia, and pain in both the groups.The operation time was 52 minutes in Modified Desarda group and 42 minutes in the Lichtenstein group that is significant (p<0.05).The recurrence was 0.0% in Modified Desarda group and 0.3% in Lichtenstein group.But, there were 8 cases of infection to the polypropylene mesh in the Lichtenstein group, 2 of this required reexploration.The morbidity was also significantly more in Lichtenstein group (7,0%) as compared to Modified Desarda group (3.6%).The mean time to return to work in the Modified Desarda group was 8.26 days while a mean of 12.58 days was in the Lichtenstein group.The mean hospital stay was 29 hrs. in Modified Desarda group while it was 49 hours in the Lichtenstein group in those patients who were hospitalized.Conclusions: Modified Desarda repair scores significantly over the Lichtenstein repair in all respects including re-explorations and morbidity.Modified Desarda repair is a better choice as compared with Lichtenstein repair.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".