Pain and Sensory Dysfunction 6 to 12 Months After Inguinal Herniotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Inguinalherniarepairisassociatedwitha5%–30%incidence of chronicpain, but the pathogenesis remains unknown. We therefore evaluated pain and sensory dysfunction by quantitative sensory testing 6–12 mo after open herniorrhaphy. Before sensory testing, all patients (n = 72) completed a short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire and a functional impairment questionnaire. Sensory dysfunction in the incisional area was evaluated by quantification of thermal and mechanical thresholds, by mechanical pain responses (von Frey/pressure algometry), and by areas of pinprick hypoesthesia and tactile allodynia. The incidence of chronic pain was28%(20of72). Quantitative sensory testing and pressure algometry did not demonstrate differences between the pain and nonpain groups, except for a small but significant increase in pain response to von Frey hair and brush stimulation in the pain group. Hypoesthesia, or tactile allodynia, in the incisional area was observed in 51% (37 of 72) of the patients, but the incidence did not differ significantly between the pain group and the nonpain group (14 of 20 versus 23 of 52; P >0.3). We concluded that cutaneous hypoesthesia, or tactile allodynia, is common after inguinal herniotomy but has a low specificity for chronic postherniotomy pain. Factors other than nerve damage may be involved in the development of chronic postherniotomy pain. IMPLICATIONS: Inguinal hernia repair is associated with a 5%–30% incidence of chronic pain. In this study, sensory testing of the surgical area did not show clinical significant differences between the pain and nonpain groups. These results suggest that factors other than cutaneous nerve damage are involved in the development of chronic pain after hernia repair.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".