Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review

Author(s):  
Danni Lip Hansen ◽  
Siv Fonnes ◽  
Jacob Rosenberg
2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danni Hansen ◽  
Siv Fonnes ◽  
Jacob Rosenberg

Abstract Aim The number of articles published each year are increasing, resulting in greater competition to get work published. Spin is defined as specific reporting strategies used to distort the readers’ interpretation of results so that they are viewed more favourable. However, prevalence of spin in studies comparing robot-assisted groin hernia repair with traditional methods is unknown. The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and extent of misrepresentation of results, spin, in studies assessing robot-assisted groin hernia repair. Methods This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered at PROSPERO before data extraction. Database search included PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central. Results Of 35 included studies, spin was present in 57%. Within these, 95% had spin present in the abstract and 80% in the conclusion of the article. There was no association between study size and spin (p > 0.05). However, presence of spin in studies positively minded towards robot-assisted hernia repair was higher (p < 0.001) compared with those against or being neutral in their view of the procedure. Furthermore, being funded by or receiving grants from Intuitive Surgical were associated with a higher prevalence of spin (p < 0.01) compared with those who were not. Conclusion Spin was found to be common in articles reporting on robot-assisted groin hernia repair, and presence of spin was higher in studies funded by or receiving grants from the robot company. This suggests that readers should be cautious when reading similar literature.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-184
Author(s):  
S. Haroutiunian ◽  
L. Nikolajsen ◽  
N.B. Finnerup ◽  
T.S. Jensen

Abstract Background/aim The aim of the current study was to assess the neuropathic component of persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) following eleven types of surgery. Methods We performed a systematic PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE search to identify studies on PPSP following (i) thoracic surgery, (ii) breast surgery, (iii) groin hernia repair, (iv) prostatectomy, (v) major abdominal surgery, (vi) gynecologic surgery, (vii) iliac crest bone harvest, (viii) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA), (ix) varicose vein stripping or ablation, (x) mandibular sagittal split osteotomy and (xi) donor nephrectomy, and assessed the prevalence of Probable/Definite neuropathic pain using the recently published neuropathic pain probability grading criteria [1]. Results We included 291 relevant papers. Surgeries performed in the thoracic/breast area resulted in similarly high median PPSP prevalence of about 30–35%; bone and joint surgeries resulted in similar PPSP prevalence of about 20%; and surgeries on visceral organs resulted in lower PPSP prevalence of 10–14%. The reported ranges of PPSP prevalence were very wide, between 0 and 91%. The prevalence of Probable/Definite neuropathic pain among patients with PPSP was about 65% after thoracic and breast surgeries, about 32% after groin hernia repair and gynecologic surgery, and between 9 and 16% after bone and joint surgeries such as iliac crest bone harvest and THA/TKA. In varicose vein surgeries and mandibular sagittal split osteotomies more research is needed to investigate the contribution of neuropathic pain mechanisms. Conclusion PPSP after different surgeries is reported to be common and often neuropathic. This systematic review of the literature showed that reported PPSP prevalences range widely among studies, and only a minority of studies used methodology that enabled the estimation of Probable/Definite neuropathic pain prevalence.


2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_8) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Hou Saeter ◽  
Siv Fonnes ◽  
Jacob Rosenberg ◽  
Kristoffer Andresen

Abstract Aim This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate 30- and 90-day postoperative mortality in patients undergoing emergency or elective groin hernia repair. Material and Methods This review is reported after the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. A protocol (CRD42021244412) was registered to PROSPERO. Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched in April 2021. The identified studies were screened for eligibility and included if they reported 30- and/or 90-day mortality following emergency or elective groin hernia repair. Meta-analyses were conducted when possible, and a subgroup analysis on patients undergoing bowel resection was made. Results We included 37 studies with a total of 30,740 patients receiving emergency repair and 457,253 receiving elective repair. Meta-analyses could not be conducted for the two repair settings separately due to heterogeneity. However, the 30-day mortality ranged from 0.0–1.7% following elective repair and 0.0–11.8% following emergency repair. The risk of 30-day mortality following emergency repair was estimated to be 26-fold higher than after elective repair. A subgroup meta-analysis on bowel resection in emergency repair estimated 30-day mortality to be 7.9%. Conclusions Emergency groin hernia remains a challenging and potentially fatal surgical emergency. This review emphasizes the importance of performing hernia repair in an elective setting to prevent a potential acute presentation with acute surgical intervention. Patients presenting with symptoms of emergency groin hernias should receive particular attention to minimize the high risk of mortality and morbidity following emergency repair.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 54-58
Author(s):  
ABM Mahbubur Rahman ◽  
Tamjeed Alam ◽  
AHM Shamsul Alam ◽  
Fahim Ferdaus ◽  
Gazi Gias Uddin

Background: Treatment of groin hernias continues to evolve. The emergence of laparoscopic inguinal hernia surgery has challenged the conventional gold standard Lichtenstein’s tension free mesh repair. Laparoscopic technique to achieve surgical correction over groin hernia is increasingly being practiced in our country, and it is imperative to test the overall outcome of this technique in a tertiary care setting. Objectives: Current study was aimed at evaluating the per-operative events, early and late outcomes of laparoscopic groin hernia repair techniques. End points of evaluation were postoperative pain, hospital stay, resumption of normal activities, chronic pain and recurrence. Methods: Within a 2-year period, 45 patients of groin hernias of different clinical types underwent laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in Bangladesh Medical College Hospital were recruited in this prospective observational study. Preoperative findings, intraoperative course, postoperative and follow-up data were analyzed to evaluate the outcomes. Observations were made regarding operating time, operative hazards, postoperative pain, incidence of early post-operative morbidities, hospital stay, resumption of activities. Total 24 months follow-up was carried out with regards to normal activity, late complications notably chronic groin pain and recurrence. Results: The mean age of 38.1±11.1 years, 27(60%) patients underwent TEP repair whereas, TAPP procedure was carried out in 18 patients (40%). For unilateral hernia repair using TEP technique, mean operative time was 50.3±4.2 mints and 61.7±5.3 mints for direct and indirect variety (D/I), with the corresponding rates for TAPP repair being 65.0±2.2 mints and 72.8±3.2 mints (D/I) respectively. Conversion rate to other operative procedure was 6.67%. The overall surgery related early post-operative morbidity was 7.4% (TEP) and 16.8% (TAPP). 3 out of 45 patients (6.67%) experienced chronic pain in the groin in the study. However, there was no single incidence of recurrence observed during the follow up period. Conclusion: Laparoscopic groin hernia repair techniques are safe and feasible, offers the benefits of minimally invasive surgery and becoming the procedure of choice specially for bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernias. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2019) Vol. 23(2): 54-58


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document