Is pain control for chronic neuropathic pain after inguinal hernia repair using endoscopic retroperitoneal neurectomy effective? A meta-analysis of 142 patients from 1995 to 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Neuropathic pain is a complication after groin hernia surgery. Triple neurectomy of the iliohypogastric nerve, ilioinguinal nerve and genitofemoral nerve is an efficient treatment modality, with several surgical approaches. The minimally invasive endoscopic method to neurectomy was specifically investigated in this meta-analysis. Our aim is to determine the efficacy of this method in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain posthernia repair surgery. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using four databases to search for the keywords ("endoscopic retroperitoneal neurectomy" and "laparoscopic retroperitoneal neurectomy"). The NCBI National Library of Medicine, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Complete and BioMed Central were last searched on 26 May 2022. Randomised control trials and retrospective or prospective papers involving endoscopic retroperitoneal neurectomy operations after inguinal hernia repair were included. All other surgeries, procedures and study designs were excluded. The internal quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The percentage of patients who had reduction in pain ("positive treatment outcome") was used to assess the procedure's effectiveness in each analysis. RESULTS: Five comparable endoscopic retroperitoneal neurectomy studies with a total of 142 patients were analysed. Both the Wald test (Q (6) = 1.79, = .775) and the probability ratio test (Q (6) = 4.24, = .374) provide similar findings (0.000, 0.0% [0.0%; 78%]). The meta-analysis' key finding is that the intervention was up to 78% effective (95% confidence interval, 71%; 84%). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic retroperitoneal neurectomy can be an effective treatment option for postoperative neuropathic pain relief following surgical hernia repair. Although there is limited reported experience with this technique, it may provide a clinical benefit to the patient. We recommend further prospective data and long-term follow-up studies be conducted to confirm and expand on these outcomes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".