Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventral hernia repair using minimally-invasive extended totally extraperitoneal repair versus intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis analysed was set up to compare totally extraperitoneal mesh repair (TEP) and intraperitoneal onlay mesh placement (IPOM) in patients undergoing minimally invasive ventral hernia mesh surgery (MIS-VHMS). METHODS: A systematic literature searches of three major databases were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that compared two techniques of MIS-VHMS: TEP and IPOM. Primary outcome of interest was major complications post-operatively, defined as a composite outcome of surgical-site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (SSOPI), readmission to hospital, recurrence, reoperation or death. Secondary outcomes were intraoperative complications, duration of surgery, surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSOPI, postoperative ileus, post-operative pain. The risk of bias was assessed using Cohranes Risk of Bias tool 2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Newcastle-Ottawa score for observational studies (OSs). RESULTS: Five OSs and two RCTs al including total number of 553 patients were included. There was no difference in primary outcome (RD 0.00 [-0.05, 0.06], p=0.95), incidence of postoperative ileus. Operative time was longer in TEP (MD 40.10 [27.28, 52.91], p<0.01). TEP was found to be associated with less postoperative pain at 24h and 7days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Both TEP and IPOM were detected to have equal safety profile and do not differ in SSO or SSOPI rates, incidence of postoperative ileus. TEP has longer operative time but provides better early postoperative pain outcomes. Further high-quality studies with long follow up evaluating recurrence and patient reported outcomes are needed. Comparison of other transabdominal and extraperitoneal MIS-VHMS techniques is another direction of future research. PROSPERO registration: CRD4202121099.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".