Laparoscopic Sac Disconnection and Peritoneal Closure of Pediatric Inguinal Hernia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Laparoscopic sac disconnection and peritoneal closure represents an alternative to open pediatric hernia repair. We performed a retrospective review of our data to evaluate this alternative method. Materials and Methods: With REB approval, a retrospective chart review of all patients who underwent laparoscopic indirect inguinal hernia repair between June 2013 and July 2016 was conducted. Primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, postoperative hydrocele, and perioperative complications. Data were extracted from EPIC Hyperspace onto a standardized data extraction form. Results: A total of 243 patients were included, of which 82% were males. Age ranged from 1 month to 17 years of age. A total of 322 defects were repaired. Eighty (32%) had contralateral patent processus vaginalis. Twelve (4%) patients presented with incarceration and three (1.2%) had a direct inguinal hernia defect. Recurrence rate was 0.6% ( n = 2). There were no intraoperative complications. Operative time was an average of 40 and 54 minutes for unilateral and bilateral repairs, respectively. No testicular ascents, testicular atrophy, vas deferens injury, postoperative hydroceles, and wound infections were reported. Conclusion: Laparoscopic sac disconnection and peritoneal closure of pediatric inguinal hernia is a safe, feasible method with one of the lowest reported recurrence rate among the other laparoscopic methods.
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 | 0.000 | 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".