Clinical and Functional Outcome After Abdominal Wall Incisional Hernia Repair: Evaluation of Quality‐of‐Life Improvement and Comparison of Assessment Scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hernias severely impact patient quality of life (QoL), and 80% of patients need surgical operation. The primary outcome of the study is to assess improvements in balance, posture and deambulation after abdominal hernia repair. Moreover, the study investigated the improvement in the postoperative QoL. METHODS: Patients operated at the Policlinico "Paolo Giaccone" at Palermo University Hospital between June 2015 and June 2017 were identified in a prospective database. The functional outcome measures and QoL assessment scales used were numeric rating scale for pain, performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA) scale, Quebec back pain disability scale, center of gravity (barycenter) variation evaluation, Short-Form (36) Health Survey (SF-36 test), sit-up test and Activities Assessment Scale (AAS). The timepoints at which the parameters listed were assessed for the study were 1 week before the surgical operation and 6 months later. RESULTS: The POMA scale showed a significant improvement, with an overall preoperative score of (mean; SD) 18.80 ± 2.17 and a postoperative score of 23.56 ± 2.24 with a p < 0.003. The improvement of the barycenter was significant with p = 0.03 and 0.01 for the right and left inferior limbs, respectively. Finally, common daily activities reported by the SF-36 test and by the AAS were significantly improved with a reported p of ≤0.04 for 5 of eight items and ≤0.002 for all items, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in such physical measures proves the importance of abdominal wall restoration to recover functional activity in the muscle-skeletal complex balance, gait and movement performance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".