Low incidence of recurrence and chronic pain after groin hernia repair in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The best operative management of groin hernia in adolescents is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review was to assess recurrence and chronic pain after mesh versus non-mesh repair for groin hernia in adolescents. METHODS: A systematic search was done in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL in May 2022 for studies reporting postoperative chronic pain (≥6 months) or recurrence after groin hernia repair in adolescents aged 10-17 years. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies on primary unilateral or bilateral groin hernia repair. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis of the incidence of recurrence was conducted. This review is reported according to PRISMA guideline. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies including 3,816 adolescents with groin hernias were included comprising two randomized controlled trials, six prospective, and 13 retrospective cohort studies. For non-mesh repairs, the weighted mean incidence proportion of recurrence was 1.6% (95% CI 0.6-2.5) after 2,167 open repairs and 1.9% (95% CI 1.1-2.8) after 1,033 laparoscopic repairs. For mesh repairs, it was 0.6% (95% CI 0.0-1.4) after 406 open repairs while there were no recurrences after 347 laparoscopic repairs (95% CI 0.0-0.6). Across all surgical techniques, the rate of chronic pain after 1,153 repairs ranged from 0 to 11%. Follow-up time varied and was reported in various ways. CONCLUSION: The incidences of recurrence after groin hernia repair in adolescents were low for both open and laparoscopic mesh and non-mesh repairs. Rates of postoperative chronic pain were low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42022130554.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".