A Meta-Analysis on the Comparison Between Pediatric Inguinal Herniotomies Performed With and Without Incising the External Oblique Aponeurosis in Terms of Recurrence and Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale: There is a diversity of methods in performing pediatric inguinal herniotomy, but no consensus on which is the gold standard. The two most common are the Ferguson technique and the Mitchell Banks technique. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the two techniques in terms of hernia recurrence and post-operative complications: namely hematoma, hydrocele, testicular ascent, and testicular atrophy. Methods: Three randomized controlled trials and one multi-center retrospective study were included in this meta-analysis. Using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale, all studies included were deemed to be of good quality and have low risk of bias. Revman 5.3 was used for all statistical analyses. Results: There was no significant difference in terms of hernia recurrence between the two techniques (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.31- 2.36). For post-operative complications, hematoma (OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.37-1.13), testicular ascent (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.05- 1.50), and testicular atrophy (OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 0.54-7.52) did not differ between the two techniques. Only the incidence of postoperative hydrocele significantly differed between the two techniques, being higher when the external oblique aponeurosis was opened (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.27-0.70). Conclusion: Performing pediatric inguinal herniotomy without opening the external oblique aponeurosis is a safe procedure and may be recommended as an optimal choice of method for uncomplicated cases. Key words: Pediatric herniotomy, Mitchell-Banks, Ferguson, external oblique aponeurosis
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 | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".