The analgesic efficacy of transversus abdominis plane block vs. wound infiltration after inguinal and infra-umbilical hernia repairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and wound infiltration with local anaesthetic have been used to relieve pain after inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether TAP block or local anaesthetic infiltration is the best analgesic option after inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials, Web of Science, up to June, 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We retrieved randomised controlled trials comparing TAP block with wound infiltration after inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. Primary outcome was rest pain score (analogue scale 0 to 10) at 2 postoperative hours. Secondary pain-related outcomes included rest pain score at 12 and 24 h, and intravenous morphine consumption at 2, 12 and 24 h. Other secondary outcomes sought were block-related complications such as rates of postoperative infection, haematoma, visceral injury and systemic toxicity of local anaesthetic. RESULTS: Seven trials including 420 patients were identified. There was a significant difference in rest pain score at 2 postoperative hours in favour of TAP block compared with wound infiltration, with a mean (95% confidence interval) difference of -0.8 (-1.3 to -0.2); I2 = 85%; P = 0.01. Most secondary pain-related outcomes were also significantly improved following TAP block. No complication was reported. The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSION: There is moderate level evidence that TAP block provides superior analgesia compared with wound infiltration following inguinal or infra-umbilical hernia repair. TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020208053.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".