ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2015
A national trainee-led audit of inguinal hernia repair in Scotland.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transabdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) versus totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic techniques for inguinal hernia repair.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Utilization of laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair at a large hernia center in China: a single-center observational study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Observational
- Adherence to international guidelines for Groin Hernia Management: a retrospective cross-sectional study in a tertiary government training hospital.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis audit assessed inguinal hernia surgery in Scotland and measured compliance with British Hernia Society Guidelines (2013), specifically regarding management of bilateral and recurrent inguinal hernias. It also assessed the feasibility of a national trainee-led audit, evaluated regional variations in practise and gauged operative exposure of trainees.
methodsA prospective audit of adult inguinal hernia repairs across every region in Scotland (30 hospitals in 14 NHS boards) over 2-weeks was co-ordinated by the Scottish Surgical Research Group (SSRG).
results235 patients (223 male, median age 61) were identified and 96 % of cases were elective. Anaesthesia was 91 % general, 5 % spinal and 3 % local. Prophylactic antibiotics were administered in 18 %. Laparoscopic repair was used in 33 % (30 % trainee-performed). Open repair was used in 67 % (42 % trainee-performed). Elective primary bilateral hernia repairs were laparoscopic in 97 % while guideline compliance for an elective recurrence was 77 %. For elective primary unilateral hernias, the use of laparoscopic repair varied significantly by region (South East 43 %, North 14 %, East 7 % and West 6 %, p < 0.001) as did repair under local anaesthesia for open cases (North 21 %, South East 4 %, West 2 % and East 0 %, p = 0.001). Trainees independently performed 9 % of procedures. There were no significant differences in trainee or unsupervised trainee operator rates between laparoscopic and open cases. Mean hospital stay was 0.7-days with day case surgery performed in 69 %.
conclusionsThis trainee-lead audit provides a contemporary view of inguinal hernia surgery in Scotland. Increased compliance on recurrent cases appears indicated. National re-audit could ensure improved adherence and would be feasible through the SSRG.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25142492What 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.