The effect of surgical repair of hiatal hernia (HH) on pulmonary function: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Hiatal hernia is renowned for the symptom of reflux, and few physicians associate a hiatal hernia with pulmonary issues. It is widely acknowledged that a hiatal hernia can be treated with surgery. However, less is known about how the surgical procedure would benefit pulmonary function. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether surgical repair can improve pulmonary function in patients with hiatal hernias. Methods We registered the protocol on the PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) platform (no. CRD42022369949). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for cohort studies that reported on the pulmonary function of patients with hiatal hernias. The quality of each cohort study was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale (NOS). We then calculated mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals for these continuous outcomes. Each study’s consistency was appraised using the I2 statistic. The sensitivity analysis was performed using the trim-and-fill method. Publication bias was confirmed using the funnel plot visually and Egger regression test statistically. Results A total of 262 patients from 5 cohorts were included in the meta-analysis. The quality evaluation revealed that, of these 5 papers, 3 received 8 NOS stars out of 9 stars, 1 received 9, and the other received 7, meaning all included cohort studies were of high quality. The results showed that surgical repair for a hiatal hernia significantly improved forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1; weighted mean difference [WMD]:0.200; 95% CI 0.047–0.353; I2 = 71.6%; P = 0.010), forced vital capacity (FVC; WMD: 0.242; 95% CI 0.161–0.323; I2 = 7.1%; P = 0.000), and total lung capacity (TLC; WMD: 0.223; 95% CI 0.098–0.348; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.000) but had little effect on residual volume (RV; WMD: –0.028; 95% CI –0.096 to 0.039; I2 = 8.7%; P = 0.411) and the diffusing capacity carbon monoxide (DLCO; WMD: 0.234; 95% CI –0.486 to 0.953; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.524). Conclusion For individuals with hiatal hernias, surgical repair is an efficient technique to improve respiratory function as measured by FEV1, FVC, and TLC.
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 | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".