The Anatomical Characteristics of Corona Mortis: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Its Clinical Importance in Hernia Repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common daily operations in general surgery. However, the anatomical structures of the region, such as the corona mortis (the crown of death), make this procedure quite challenging. A comprehensive knowledge of its anatomy is essential, since massive hemorrhage may occur if the vessel is injured. The current review of the literature aimed to report the frequency and anatomical variations of vascular corona mortis. METHODS: A substantial study was coordinated through PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar. The Prisma guidelines were used for the systematic review of the articles found. A total of 13 studies and 1,455 patients were included for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The results showed that corona mortis was present in about half the hemi-pelvises, and to be more accurate, the prevalence was 46%. Venous corona mortis was more frequent than the arterial type (42% vs. 25%). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the percentages mentioned above, every surgeon who schedules an operation on the retro-pubic area, especially during a hernioplasty procedure, should evaluate the possibility of the presence of corona mortis. Anatomical knowledge of the region is vital for attempting to eliminate the risk of injuring the corona mortis during surgery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".