ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Defining complex groin hernia and contextualizing approach selection: a three-round Delphi consensus framework.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe term "complex groin hernia" is widely used in clinical practice but lacks a standardized operational definition and a structured framework to guide escalation, referral pathways, and approach selection.
methodsA three-round Delphi process was conducted with a fixed panel of 54 Italian expert abdominal wall surgeons evaluating 85 statements across elective and emergency scenarios spanning (1) definition of complexity, (2) hernia characteristics, (3) patient characteristics, and (4) previous surgical history. Items were scored on a 5-point Likert scale in Rounds 1-2 and on a 3-point scale in Round 3. Consensus was graded as no consensus (< 65%), leaning agreement/disagreement (65-80%), or agreement/disagreement (> 80%).
resultsOverall, 44 of 85 statements (51.8%) achieved at least leaning consensus (≥ 65%): 34 in agreement and 10 in disagreement; strong consensus (> 80%) was reached for 18 statements (21.2%). In elective surgery, complexity was mainly defined by escalation needs, including requirement for a highly experienced surgeon and/or referral to a dedicated center. Emergency presentation should be regarded as a time-sensitive complexity setting; within this domain, consensus clustered around bowel compromise/obstruction and contaminated or dirty fields as severity and planning markers, not as transfer criteria. For approach selection, the panel converged toward a change-of-plane principle for recurrence. Obesity-related items showed heterogeneous views and did not translate into a single preferred approach. Operative time emerged as a pathway-planning modifier rather than a fixed determinant of operative plane.
conclusionsThis Delphi study proposes a conservative, non-prescriptive framework to define and report complex groin hernia. Its most robust outputs concern expertise escalation, emergency risk markers, and the change-of-plane principle for recurrence, while areas of weaker agreement should be interpreted as expertise-sensitive decision nodes requiring external validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42622861What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.