Chronic Groin Pain After Hernia Surgery: What Are We Missing?
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Chronic postoperative inguinal pain [CPIP] is a prevalent and often debilitating complication following inguinal hernia repair. With the widespread adoption of mesh-based techniques, recurrence rates have significantly declined, shifting clinical focus toward postoperative pain management. Methods: This narrative review synthesizes international literature on CPIP incidence, surgical technique, geographic variation, and the distinction between neuropathic and nociceptive pain. Studies were selected based on relevance, sample size, and inclusion of pain subclassification. Results: CPIP incidence varies markedly across studies (6–64.3%), influenced by follow-up duration, surgical approach, and regional healthcare practices. The risk of CPIP varies significantly, depending on the surgical technique employed, with open repairs generally associated with higher rates than laparoscopic approaches. Neuropathic pain predominates in specific cohorts, particularly following open repairs with limited nerve preservation. Few studies differentiate pain types, revealing a critical gap in diagnostic precision. Conclusions: CPIP is a multifactorial and under-recognized problem in clinical practice. The adoption of standardized diagnostic tools and long-term follow-up protocols is essential to improve pain classification and management. A structured diagnostic algorithm may assist clinicians in distinguishing pain types and tailoring treatment strategies to individual patient profiles.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Chronic Groin Pain After Hernia Surgery: What Are We Missing?
- Date Crossref
- 29/08/2025
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.