A clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric nerve block to transversus abdominis plane block for analgesia following open inguinal hernia repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric (IINB) nerve block to transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in controlling incisional pain after open inguinal hernia repair. Patients and methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of 90 patients who received either IINB (N=45) or TAP block (N=45) using 0.2% bupivacaine 15 mL under ultrasound (US) guidance based on a random assignment in the postanesthesia care unit after having an open repair of inguinal hernia. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores were recorded immediately following, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours after completion of the block. NRS scores at rest and during movement were recorded 24, 36, and 48 hours after surgery. Analgesic satisfaction level was also evaluated by a Likert-based patient questionnaire. Results: NRS scores were lower in the IINB group compared to the TAP block group both at rest and during movement. The difference in dynamic pain scores was statistically significant ( P =0.017). In addition, analgesic satisfaction was significantly greater in the IINB group than the TAP block group (mean score 2.43 vs 1.84, P =0.001). Postoperative opioid requirements did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that compared to TAP block, local blockade of ilioinguinal and iliohypogastric nerves provides better pain control after open repair of inguinal hernia when both blocks were administered under US guidance. Greater satisfaction scores also reflected superior analgesia in patients receiving IINB. Keywords: US-guided nerve block, transversus abdominis plane, ilioinguinal, iliohypogastric nerve, inguinal hernia surgery Corrigendum for this paper has been published.
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 | 0.048 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".