ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Combined open and laparoscopic technique for extraperitoneal mesh repair of large sac inguinal hernias.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) hernia repair has been confirmed as an effective procedure in several studies but is considered technically demanding. Separating the hernial sac and spermatic cord is difficult when a large sac inguinal hernia is encountered. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of a combined open and laparoscopic TEP repair of large sac inguinal hernias.
methodsFrom June 2012 to May 2015, laparoscopic TEP (112 cases) and combined open and laparoscopic TEP (COL-TEP) (44 cases) were performed in patients with large sac hernia. There was no clear definition of large sac inguinal hernia; therefore, we defined a large sac as one with the sac base cranial to or over outer ring that could not be easily resected laparoscopically. Using this definition, the laparoscopic TEP group was divided into a small sac TEP (SS-TEP) group (68 cases) and a large sac TEP (LS-TEP) group (44 cases). Direct hernias were included in the SS-TEP group because the hernial sac was easily dissected laparoscopically. The patient demographics, perioperative parameters, complications, and recurrence were compared between the three groups.
resultsNo significant differences were found between the groups in mean age, gender, body mass index, comorbidities, number of previous laparotomies, or recurrence rate. Compared with the LS-TEP group, both the SS-TEP and COL-TEP groups had a significantly lower surgical duration (51.4 ± 10.9 vs. 32.8 ± 13.1 and 36.2 ± 11.2 min, respectively), conversion rate (13.6 vs. 0 and 0 %, respectively), and total complication rate (27.3 vs. 13.2 and 11.3 %, respectively).
conclusionThe combined technique was safe and effective for repair of large sac inguinal hernias. The combined technique was associated with decreased technical difficulty, surgical duration, and conversion and total complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26514131What 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.