A Patient-Centered Appraisal of Outcomes following Abdominal Wall Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Published assessment tools have attempted to investigate patient-centered outcomes after abdominal wall defect repairs, including quality-of-life measures, functional outcomes, pain assessment, and overall satisfaction scores; however, health-related quality of life following hernia repair remains unclear. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried and 880 articles were identified. Of these, 22 met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Analysis included health-related quality-of-life metrics focusing on quality of life, pain, physical function, overall satisfaction with surgery, impact of component separation, use of synthetic or biologic mesh, and emotional sequelae of an abdominal wall defect and repair. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were reviewed; the mean study size was 117.7 patients (range, 14 to 402 patients). Mean and median ventral hernia defect sizes were 104.5 cm and 71.5 cm, respectively. All studies reported open repairs using synthetic mesh. The Short Form-36 was used most often (11 of 22) in comparison to other assessment methods. Patients had global improvement in quality of life, functionality, impact on social function, and patient satisfaction. Hernia recurrence was found to have a major negative impact on quality of life. Midline repair improved overall pain and abdominal wall functionality in both presurgical patients and those with hernia recurrence. Component separation techniques appear to have a positive impact on global health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting an abdominal wall procedure-specific quality-of-life assessment tool as the standard is strongly recommended to gain a comprehensive understanding of abdominal wall defects and repairs. The available literature in open abdominal wall repair suggests an improved quality of life. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".