A rare case of a concomitant inguinal and obturator hernia and their laparoscopic transabdominal repair: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An obturator hernia remains a rare occurrence and accounts for less than 1% of all abdominal wall hernias. To have a concomitant presentation with a direct inguinal hernia makes this an extremely rare case report. This patient did not fit the usual epidemiological profile of an elderly female with small intestinal obstruction. This was a male patient with an asymptomatic obturator hernia. There are no concise guidelines for obturator hernia management and the primary repair is often undertaken in the presence of bowel incarceration or strangulation. The use of overlapping mesh herniorrhaphy is a controversial one. Two self-gripping polypropylene meshes with a 2-cm overlap were used to provide adequate coverage of the two hernial necks. We did not have access to a large-size mesh at our institution to cover both hernial defects effectively with one mesh. The patient made an uneventful recovery, and it is our intent to follow this patient for a minimum of 2 years to document any hernia recurrence or inguinodynia. Any clinical signs of pain or discomfort will necessitate a computerised tomography scan as an obturator hernia remains difficult to assess clinically.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".