Page tree

Note: Generic hernia template

StatusReady for implementation



Termdescription typeLanguage/acceptabilityLanguage/acceptabilityCase significance
[Course] [herniated structure morphology] herniation of [herniated anatomical structure ] into [hernial opening anatomical structure] (disorder)FSNus:Pgb:Pci
[Course] [herniated structure morphology] herniation of [herniated anatomical structure] into [hernial opening anatomical structure]SYNus:Pgb:Pci

Concept model:

Definition status:  

900000000000073002 |Defined|

Applies To:  Hernia (disorder)

Hernia disorders where a more specific hernia template does not exist. 

Rules for description generation:

  1. Apply General rules for generating descriptions for templates;
  2. Apply the enhancements for the SNOMED template language;
  3. If [herniated structure morphology] uses concept 414403008 |Herniated structure (morphologic abnormality)| leave blank.
  4. Remove hernia from [herniated structure morphology] if the term contains hernia e.g. 110418002 |Incarcerated hernia (morphologic abnormality)|

JIRA ticket:

INFRA-2910 - Getting issue details... STATUS

INFRA-3241 - Getting issue details... STATUS


  1. For the second role group, would we not want to use 83908009 |Abdominal wall structure (body structure)| as opposed to abdominal structure?  The latter would allow a hernial opening in the liver, etc.

  2. Internal hernias are less common but do occur e.g. Paraduodenal hernia.

    1. May I suggest that for these more rare types of internal hernias, we create a sibling relationship with the more common abdominal wall hernias?  The lack of specificity of "abdominal structure" as the finding site for the hernial opening gives me a bit of heartburn.

  3. Cathy Richardson, I have updated the domain expression for this template and raised the JIRA ticket to implement the template.

  4. The template service may currently have an issue working with multiple role groups - perhaps Michael Chu or Yongsheng Gao could comment - but this is not an issue for QI.

    What I do see here though is that - with both the attributes and the attribute groups optional, in fact no attributes are required at all for this template to be satisfied.    Unfortunately, we don't seem to have enough subtlety of expression to say "At least one or the other of these groups, or both".

    Something I think we can do, is that if we're saying the groups themselves are optional, we can say that the attributes within them are compulsory.   So if you have one of these groups, then they MUST contain both of the attributes listed.   Or at least just the morphology perhaps?

  5. Peter G. Williams I've updated the template given your comments. At a minimum I'd expect that the relationship group with the associated morphology of hernial opening would be present on the concept so have made that group mandatory. 

    Yongsheng Gao  Will you review please given changes. 


  6. Yongsheng Gao Hi there, Would you review this template please. Cathy

  7. Cathy Richardson , I have updated the rule for description and also provided link for template language enhancements for supporting repeating role group. Cheers, Yong