OC-046 SURGICAL ASPECTS AND EARLY MORBIDITY OF RECURRENT INGUINAL HERNIAS DURING OPEN REOPERATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Inguinal hernia recurrences (IHR) are relatively common and have higher complexity and complication risk at reoperation when compared with primary inguinal hernias (PIH). This study aims to further characterize the patterns of recurrence and early complications observed by type of hernia repair at the index surgery. Methods After REB approval, a review of charts from patients undergoing elective first reoperation for IHR from 2013–2017 was performed. First operations were classified as: childhood repair, laparoscopic repair, open tissue repair, open mesh repair and Shouldice repair. Early complication included hematoma, infection and seroma. Statistical analyses were completed. Results A total of 1281 patients underwent 1340 surgeries for IHR in the study period (4.9% of all inguinal hernias operated). There wa an increased proportion of males, direct type hernias and wound infection in IHR group (p<.001) when compared with PIH repairs. During surgical procedure, the length of surgery was longer, scarring of tissues heavier, nerve identification lower in patients with previous open mesh and Shouldice repairs, in comparison to other groups (childhood, laparoscopic and open repair - p<.001). Conclusion Recurrent inguinal hernia repairs present higher complexity than PIH repairs and incurr in higher chances of early postoperative complications. The type of PIH repair technique influences surgical difficulties encountered in the open reoperation, with open mesh and Shouldice techniques being associated with higher surgical difficulty. This information may help in surgical planning, according with the anticipated leverl of procedure difficulty.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".