Abdominal hernia mesh repair in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative hernia-repair complications are frequent in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). This fact challenges surgeons' decision about hernia mesh management in these patients. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the hernia mesh repair in IBD patients with emphasis on risk factors for postoperative complications. METHOD: A systematic review was done in compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. A search was carried out on PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. English language articles published from inception to October 2021 were included in this study. MERSQI scores were applied along with evidence grades in agreement with GRADE's recommendations. The research protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021247185). RESULTS: The present systematic search resulted in 11,243 citations with a final inclusion of 10 citations. One paper reached high and 4 moderate quality. Patients with IBD exhibit about 27% recurrence after hernia repair. Risk factors for overall abdominal septic morbidity in Crohn's disease comprised enteroprosthetic fistula, mesh withdrawals, surgery duration, malnutrition biological mesh, and gastrointestinal concomitant procedure. CONCLUSION: Patients with IBD were subject, more so than controls to postoperative complications and hernia recurrence. The use of a diversity of mesh types, a variety of position techniques, and several surgical choices in the citations left room for less explicit and more implicit inferences as regards best surgical option for hernia repair in patients with IBD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".