D-COMPASS

Research beta · expert validation only · 0.8.1 beta — expert validation only / rules 0.8.1-expert-validation-only

DefectClosureOverlapMeshPlaneAccessSeparationStability
0.8 beta — expert validation only. This research prototype is intended to compare transparent algorithm outputs with independent expert judgement. It is not clinically validated and must not be used as an autonomous recommendation or as a substitute for surgeon assessment.
1A

Patient data

Clinical factors, current abdominal-wall status and previous operations.

Basic data

Clinical factors

Current stoma

Previous abdominal and pelvic operations

Add each relevant operation separately. Previous hernia repairs and meshes will be calculated from this list.

1B

CT data

Manual entry now; later this object can be populated by the CT analyser.

Defect and hernia field

Reduction and closure geometry

Abdominal wall geometry

LevelOffset YRight rectusLinea albaLeft rectus
3rd above
2nd above
1st above
Umbilicus
1st below
2nd below
Reset
2

D-COMPASS expert-validation output

Transparent domain-by-domain algorithm result for independent expert comparison.

Standardscore 0 · confidence 70%
Result statusMANUAL_REVIEW

The current values are interface examples and have not been submitted as an expert-validation case.

EHSM2–M4 W2
BMI27.7
Mesh required18.0 × 20.0 cm
Algorithmic planNot generated — expert resolution required
D

Defect

M2–M4 W2 — 8.0 × 10.0 cm

  • EHS classification: M2–M4 W2.
  • Defect 8.0 × 10.0 cm; centre X 0.0 cm and Y 0.0 cm relative to the umbilicus.
  • Space from defect edge to semilunar line: left 5.0 cm, right 5.0 cm.
  • An abdominal wall defect has been identified.
C

Closure

Longitudinal fascial closure at risk of failure without tension-reduction manoeuvres

Fascial defect axis
longitudinal
Original scar axis
none
Bulging/deformation axis
not assessed
Planned suture axis
longitudinal
Perpendicular dimension
8.0 cm
Oblique-axis angle
not applicable / not entered
Closure feasibility
difficult
Tanaka index / LoD
0.0%
Content reduction
likely safe
Tissue quality
not directly measured no major risk flag
Missing mobility
0.0–2.0 cm
BTA estimated gain
BTA: medialisation 2.0–4.0 cm per side, total 4.0–8.0 cm; estimated volume-preparation benefit 5.0–10.0%.
TAR estimated gain
Unilateral TAR: medialisation 4.0–6.0 cm; bilateral TAR: total medialisation 8.0–12.0 cm; estimated volume-preparation benefit 10.0–20.0%.
Weight-loss estimate
Weight loss: no direct fascial-mobility gain; estimated volume-preparation benefit 0.0–5.0% for the current BMI category.
Omentectomy estimate
Omentectomy: no direct fascial-mobility gain; estimated content-volume reduction 0.5–2.0 L and effective volume-preparation benefit 5.0–15.0%.
Best manoeuvre candidates
BTA — required preoperative preparation.
Closure assurance
covered by conservative minimum-gain estimates
LoD volume-preparation target
0.0%
Volume-preparation assurance
covered by conservative minimum-gain estimates
Required right-edge movement
4.0 cm
Required left-edge movement
4.0 cm
  • A perpendicular closure dimension of 8–12 cm raises concern that closure may not be achieved without BTA, TAR or another tension-reduction manoeuvre.
  • BTA is expected to cover the estimated bilateral mobility deficit and is the least invasive closure manoeuvre candidate.
  • Preferred closure axis: longitudinal; selection basis: fascial defect geometry proxy.
  • Dimension perpendicular to the suture axis: 8.0 cm.
  • Estimated symmetric translation: right edge 4.0 cm and left edge 4.0 cm.
  • Tanaka index / LoD: 0.0%. Content reduction is assessed as likely safe.
  • BTA: medialisation 2.0–4.0 cm per side, total 4.0–8.0 cm; estimated volume-preparation benefit 5.0–10.0%.
  • Unilateral TAR: medialisation 4.0–6.0 cm; bilateral TAR: total medialisation 8.0–12.0 cm; estimated volume-preparation benefit 10.0–20.0%.
  • Weight loss: no direct fascial-mobility gain; estimated volume-preparation benefit 0.0–5.0% for the current BMI category.
  • Omentectomy: no direct fascial-mobility gain; estimated content-volume reduction 0.5–2.0 L and effective volume-preparation benefit 5.0–15.0%.
  • Best manoeuvre candidates: BTA — required preoperative preparation.
O

Overlap

Required from original defect: 5.0 cm in every direction; anatomically achievable

Right
required 5.0 cm; available 5.0 cm; planned 5.0 cm; deficit 0.0 cm
Left
required 5.0 cm; available 5.0 cm; planned 5.0 cm; deficit 0.0 cm
Cranial
required 5.0 cm; available 18.0 cm; planned 5.0 cm; deficit 0.0 cm
Caudal
required 5.0 cm; available 15.0 cm; planned 5.0 cm; deficit 0.0 cm
Required mesh
18.0 × 20.0 cm
Anatomically planned mesh
18.0 × 20.0 cm
  • A minimum overlap of 5 cm is assumed for an incisional hernia.
  • Coverage measured from the suture line after longitudinal closure is geometric information only and does not reduce the required mesh width.
  • Minimal overlap is calculated from the original defect boundaries; post-closure coverage does not reduce the required mesh size.
  • Right: required 5.0 cm, planned 5.0 cm (lateral anatomical limit not defined at this stage).
  • Left: required 5.0 cm, planned 5.0 cm (lateral anatomical limit not defined at this stage).
  • Cranial: required 5.0 cm, planned 5.0 cm (available 18.0 cm).
  • Caudal: required 5.0 cm, planned 5.0 cm (available 15.0 cm).
  • Informational coverage from the suture line after closure: right 9.0 cm, left 9.0 cm, cranial 5.0 cm, caudal 5.0 cm.
  • Any overlap deficit is only identified in O; the compensation strategy is selected later in Stability.
M

Mesh

18.0 × 20.0 cm required from original defect

Required mesh
18.0 × 20.0 cm
Anatomically planned mesh
18.0 × 20.0 cm
Calculation basis
Original defect + directional required/planned overlap
  • The required implant is calculated from the original defect dimensions, not from the reduced width or length after fascial closure.
P

Plane / Position

Bilateral retrorectus plane

Right side
retrorectus
Midline
retromuscular crossover
Left side
retrorectus
Right extension
none
Right TAR indication
not required
Left extension
none
Left TAR indication
not required
TAR role
not required
  • The external rules selected the plane from the required implant field and available anatomy.
  • Plane is reported segment by segment: right side, midline, left side and any TAR extension.
A

Access

Minimally invasive eTEP retromuscular access

  • eTEP is indicated when the implant must span both retrorectus spaces.
S1

Separation

Preoperative: BTA.

BTA — required preoperative preparation

Why: bilateral fascial-mobility deficit

Estimated effect: BTA: medialisation 2.0–4.0 cm per side, total 4.0–8.0 cm; estimated volume-preparation benefit 5.0–10.0%.

Estimated combined effect of the complete prescription

Fascial medialisation / lateral-wall gain

4.0–8.0 cm total

Required for assured closure: 3.0 cm
Estimated volume-preparation gain

5.0–10.0%

Target from Tanaka/LoD: 0.0%

Closure: covered by conservative minimum-gain estimates. Volume preparation: covered by conservative minimum-gain estimates.

Combined ranges are additive planning estimates from the editable rules. Biological effects may overlap and are not a guarantee of the operative result.

S2

Stability

No routine mesh fixation

Overlap deficit present
no
Additional stability compensation
no
Fixation
not routinely required
  • With appropriate closure, overlap, implant size and plane, routine fixation is not necessary.
  • Adequate closure, overlap, implant size and extraperitoneal plane permit a no-fixation strategy.

Warnings requiring surgeon review

  • The current values are interface examples and have not been submitted as an expert-validation case.
Validation and audit metadata
Intended use
Expert validation only
Rules version
0.8.1-expert-validation-only
Rules SHA-256
2c3799ad2f460762a957b8df0b643873349dbd0e21ac19cd1995015df265a227
Input SHA-256
ce9a5b0de517a4b34ae9aa6363bcdd7d08b868409262deb694cffbecc0703935
Decision trace
95 matched rule assignments; full trace and source registry are included in JSON.
Confidence meaning
Data/rule confidence for expert validation; not a probability of clinical success.

Confidence reductions

  • MANUAL_REVIEW_STATUS: The result contains a mandatory expert-review flag.
3

Anatomical sketch

Integrated latest sketch module, driven by the same CT geometry and calculated mesh dimensions.

4

Algorithmic operative plan — requires surgeon review

Research output for expert comparison; not a validated clinical recommendation.

Not generated — expert resolution required

The plan, trocar layout and operative sequence were suppressed because a preceding D-COMPASS stage is unresolved or outside the current scope.

  • The current values are interface examples and have not been submitted as an expert-validation case.