MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200279591 · doi:10.1097/ogx.0000000000000961

Laparoscopic Port-Site Hernia: An Underrecognized Iatrogenic Complication of Laparoscopic Surgery

2021· review· en· W4200279591 on OpenAlexaff
Dinushi De Alwis, A. E. Ades, Pavitra Nanayakkara

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMinimally Invasive Surgical Techniques
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLaparoscopic surgeryPort (circuit theory)SurgeryComplicationLaparoscopyGeneral surgeryHernia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance Port-site hernia is an iatrogenic complication with a documented incidence between 0.65% and 2.8%. However, the true incidence could be higher because of delayed onset, asymptomatic nature, and loss to follow-up. Port-site hernia could be further complicated by incarceration or strangulation leading to small bowel obstruction requiring emergent surgical intervention, thus imposing significant financial and emotional burden to patients. Objective This article aims to provide a summary of the available literature concerning port-site hernia and explore preventive strategies for future clinical practice. Evidence Acquisition This review was formulated through electronic literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The reference lists of the included studies were hand searched to identify other relevant articles to capture all available literature in this narrative review. Results Following screening for eligibility based on relevance to the topic under consideration, 28 studies were identified. This included 5 original articles, 1 case series, and 22 review articles, including 4 systematic reviews. Included studies were critically appraised in formulating this review. Conclusions Port-site hernia is an underrecognized yet preventable complication with careful consideration of predisposing technical and host factors, thorough attention to surgical technique, or use of a fascial closure device. Relevance With the widespread and increasing use of laparoscopic methods to treat surgical pathologies, knowledge of this complication is imperative to encourage prevention strategies and facilitate early recognition and management should it occur. Target Audience Obstetricians and gynecologists, family physicians Learning Objectives After participating in this activity, physicians should be better able to define and differentiate the types of port-site hernia; describe technical and host factors that predispose to the development of port-site hernia; identify potential complications of port-site hernia; and apply technical and prosthetic strategies to prevent port-site hernia in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicMinimally Invasive Surgical TechniquesFrench-language works237,207