A Comparison of the Onlay and Sublay Mesh Procedures for the Repair Of Ventral Hernias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of the on-lay mesh technique and the sub-lay mesh technique for ventral hernia repair. Study Design: Observational/ Retrospective Place & Duration: Benazir Bhutto Shaheed Hospital, Abbottabad; from May 2022-October-2022 Methods: 116 individuals of both sexes, aged 18 to 75, who were undergoing ventral hernia repair were examined. After receiving the patient's consent, information about the patient's age and gender was recorded. All of the patients were equally split into two groups, Group I and Group II. Participants in Group I were treated with an on-lay mesh method, while those in Group II were given a sub-lay approach. Consequences such as discomfort after surgery, bacterial infections, seroma development, and lengths of stay in the hospital were documented and compared between the two groups. All data was analyzed with SPSS 24. Results: In group I mean age was 47.12+5.38 years and in group II mean age was 48.7+11.66 years. Among all, majority of the cases 67 (57.8%) were females and 49 (42.2%) cases were males. Postoperative pain was significantly higher in the group I 5.1+3.18 whereas in the group II, it was lower 2.9+4.16, with wound infection affecting 10 (17.2%) patients vs 5 (5.2%) patients (P<0.005). Seroma was identified in 3 (5.2%) of Group II patients and 7 (12.1%) of Group I patients (p<0.005). Hospitalization durations were significantly longer for participants in Group I (6.0+1.36 days) compared to those in Group II (3.2+0.44 days; p<0.05). Conclusion: This research came to the conclusion that the sub-lay mesh approach for ventral hernia repair was not only successful but also safe, with a very low risk of problems when compared to the on-lay mesh operation. Keywords: On-lay Mesh Technique, Ventral Hernia Repair, Outcomes, Sub-lay Mesh Technique
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".