Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22116597›Full record

ReviewLangenbeck's archives of surgery2012

Inguinal hernia repair: current surgical techniques.

R Bittner, J Schwarz

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

68 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 176 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. International guidelines for groin hernia management.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Is TAPP the Right alternative for patients undergoing emergency surgery for incarcerated inguinal hernia?Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

R BittnerDepartment of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Herniacenter, EuromedClinic Fürth, Europaallee 1, 90763, Fürth, Germany. bittnerfamilie@web.de
J Schwarz
Euromedic · PLKlinikum Fürth · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSelection of an optimal surgical technique for inguinal hernia repair, allowing safe performance and rapid recovery without long-term complaints, may contribute significantly to the reduction of national health care costs.

methodsAn analysis of current literature regarding surgical techniques, properties of modern meshes, operative complications, recurrence rates, occurrence of chronic pain, and quality of life after different surgical procedures was made. Evidence-based comparisons of suture and mesh techniques of open mesh and laparoscopic mesh repair and of laparoscopic (TAPP) and endoscopic (TEP) operation were made.

resultsRecurrence rates after mesh implantation are significantly lower than after suture repair. Recurrence rates after flat open mesh repair are similar to those of laparoscopic techniques, but there is a significantly faster recovery after laparoscopy, and chronic pain is also present less frequently. Both TAPP and TEP are acceptable treatment options, but there is insufficient evidence to show superiority of one technique over the other. Material-reduced meshes seem to have advantages, at least during the early postoperative period. Besides the properties of the mesh implanted, the surgical technique applied and the skills of the surgeon performing the operation are the most important factors for achieving optimal and cost-efficient results.

conclusionWith regard to recovery and occurrence of chronic pain, TAPP and TEP are superior to open mesh repair in most cases. Greater efforts should be undertaken to make laparoscopic repair easier, safer, and less expensive. If this can be achieved, health care costs could ultimately be reduced.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSurgical MeshChronic PainEndoscopyEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyLaparotomyMalePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID22116597
OpenAlexW2039038041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.