OC-041 TOTALLY EXTRA-PERITONEAL REPAIR VERSUS TRANS-ABDOMINAL PRE-PERITONEAL REPAIR FOR THE LAPAROSCOPIC SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF SPORTSMAN'S HERNIA: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Open and laparoscopic modalities are employed for treatment of sportsman's hernia, with totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) and trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) laparoscopic approaches both currently being utilised. At present, neither subtype has demonstrated superiority for sportsman's hernia repair. The aim of this review was to evaluate current evidence to ascertain whether there was a difference in laparoscopic techniques following sportsman's hernia repair. Material & Methods A systematic literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards. Databases searched included PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science to identify all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale for RCTs and observational studies, respectively. The assessed outcomes included median time to return to sporting activity, complications and the degree of postoperative pain reduction within three months. Random effects model was used to calculate pooled proportion data where feasible. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Results 28 studies were identified including 2 RCTs and 26 observational studies. No significant differences were observed between techniques in the primary or secondary outcomes. Significant heterogeneity was observed in all outcomes. This was signficant for return to sporting activity; thus meta-analysis was not feasible in this domain. Median time to return to sporting activity was 28 days for both techniques. Conclusions There is no difference in the primary and secondary outcomes in either technique. An RCT comparing TEP and TAPP repair is needed to provide definitive data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".