MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409586663 · doi:10.5604/01.3001.0054.9903

Postoperative drainage after totally extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W4409586663 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yegor Tryliskyy, Andrii Kebkalo, O. S. Marshtupa, І. В. Клюзко, Ruslan Tserkovniuk, I. M. Yatsyk

Bibliographic record

VenuePolish Journal of Surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHernia repair and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInguinal herniaMeta-analysisSurgeryDrainageGeneral surgeryHerniaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b>Introduction:</b> Total extra-peritoneal (TEP) repair is one of minimally invasive treatment options for inguinal hernia repair. While TEP repair has several advantages over other minimally invasive techniques, the main drawback of TEP is higher incidence of seroma formation. The goal of our study was to systematically review and meta analyze existing evidence on the role of postoperative drainage post TEP surgery for groin hernia repair and to assess risks associated with use of drains. <br><br><b>Aim:</b> The goal of our study was to systematically review and meta-analyse the existing evidence on the role of postoperative drainage post TEP surgery for groin hernia repair and to assess risks associated with the use of drains. <br><br><b>Methods:</b> A systematic literature search of major databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that compared usage of drain with control in patients undergoing TEP. Primary outcomes for this study were: seroma rates, surgical site infection rates (SSI), urinary retention, postoperative pain at 24 hours after operation, postoperative pain at one week after operation, chronic pain and quality of life scores (QoL). Random-effects and Fixed-effects models to analyse data were used. Risk difference (RD) was calculated for dichotomous outcomes (seroma, SSI, urinary retention) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies and Risk of Bias Tool -2 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs).<br><br><b>Results:</b> There were 5 studies that enrolled 1659 participants (1288 in the drain group and 371 in the control group). Three studies were observational and two were RCTs. The meta-analysis of included studies has confirmed significant risk difference in the occurrence of seroma in favour of using postoperative drain (RD -0.19 [-0.26, -0.12], test for overall effect: Z = 5.24 (p<0.00001), I<sup>2</sup> = 59%). There was significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity in findings. <br><br><b>Conclusions:</b> Use of postoperative drains after TEP is safe and was shown to be associated with a reduced risk of seroma formation, although a low number of studies was included with a predominance of observational data. There was significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity in findings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolish Journal of SurgerySame topicHernia repair and managementFrench-language works237,207