Quantitative somatosensory assessments in patients with persistent pain following groin hernia repair: A systematic review with a meta-analytical approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Quantitative sensory testing (QST) provides an assessment of cutaneous and deep tissue sensitivity and pain perception under normal and pathological settings. Approximately 2-4% of individuals undergoing groin hernia repair (GHR) develop severe persistent postsurgical pain (PPSP). The aims of this systematic review of PPSP-patients were (1) to retrieve and methodologically characterize the available QST literature and (2) to explore the role of QST in understanding mechanisms underlying PPSP following GHR. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted from JAN-1992 to SEP-2022 in PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar. For inclusion, studies had to report at least one QST-modality in patients with PPSP. Risk of bias assessment of the studies was conducted utilizing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane's Risk of Bias assessment tool 2.0. The review provided both a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the results. A random effects model was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included (5 randomized controlled trials, 20 non-randomized controlled trials). Overall, risk of bias was low. Compared with the contralateral side or controls, there were significant alterations in somatosensory function of the surgical site in PPSP-patients. Following thresholds were significantly increased: mechanical detection thresholds for punctate stimuli (mean difference (95% CI) 3.3 (1.6, 6.9) mN (P = 0.002)), warmth detection thresholds (3.2 (1.6, 4.7) °C (P = 0.0001)), cool detection thresholds (-3.2 (-4.9, -1.6) °C (P = 0.0001)), and heat pain thresholds (1.9 (1.1, 2.7) °C (P = 0.00001)). However, the pressure pain thresholds were significantly decreased (-76 (-123, -30) kPa (P = 0.001)). CONCLUSION: Our review demonstrates a plethora of methods used regarding outcome assessments, data processing, and data interpretation. From a pathophysiological perspective, the most consistent findings were postsurgical cutaneous deafferentation and development of a pain generator in deeper connective tissues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42022331750.
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 | 0.019 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".