MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224236485 · doi:10.1007/s00268-022-06550-9

Open Versus Laparoscopic Surgical Management of Rectus Diastasis: Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis of Complications and Recurrence Rates

2022· review· en· W4224236485 on OpenAlexaff
Hassan ElHawary, Christian Chartier, Peter Alam, Jeffrey E. Janis

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgery · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiastasisVascular surgeryAbdominal surgerySurgeryCardiothoracic surgeryCardiac surgeryLaparoscopic surgeryLaparoscopyGeneral surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Rectus diastasis (RD) is defined as widening of the linea alba and laxity of the abdominal muscles. It can be treated via a wide array of both conservative and surgical modalities. Due to the quickly evolving nature of this field coupled with the multiple novel surgical modalities described recently, there is a need for an updated review of surgical techniques and a quantitative analysis of complications and recurrence rates. METHODS: A systematic review of PUBMED and EMBASE databases was preformed to retrieve all clinical studies describing surgical management of RD. Pooled analyses were preformed to assess recurrence and complication rates after both open and laparoscopic RD repairs (after controlling for herniorrhaphy). RESULTS: A total of 56 papers were included in this review. In patients who underwent both an RD and a herniorrhaphy, there was no significant difference in recurrence rates between open (0.86%) and laparoscopic repairs (1.6%) (p > 0.05). Similarly, in patients who underwent RD repair without a herniorrhaphy, there was no significant difference in recurrence rates between open (0.89%) and laparoscopic repairs (0%) (p > 0.05). The most common complications reported were seroma, skin dehiscence, hematoma/post-operative bleeding, and infection. After controlling for a herniorrhaphy, there were no significant difference in total complication rates between open and laparoscopic RD repair. The total complication rates in patients who underwent an open RD repair with a herniorrhaphy were 13.3% compared to 14.5% in patients who underwent laparoscopic repairs (p > 0.05). Similarly, the total complication rates in patients who underwent RD repair without a herniorrhaphy were 11.8% in patients who underwent open repairs compared to 16.2% in their counterparts who underwent laparoscopic repairs (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both open and laparoscopic approaches are safe and effective in repairing RD in patients with and without concurrent herniorrhaphy. Future research should report patient reported outcomes to better differentiate between different surgical approaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.716

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of SurgerySame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207