Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26874507›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2016

Perioperative outcomes and costs of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia repair.

C Tadaki, D Lomelin, A Simorov, R Jones, M Humphreys, M daSilva, S Choudhury, V Shostrom, E Boilesen, V Kothari and 2 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors.

C TadakiGeneral Surgery/Bariatric Surgery, Hardin Memorial Hospital, 913 N. Dixie Ave, Elizabethtown, KY, 42701, USA.
D LomelinDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985126 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA.
A SimorovDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985126 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA.
R JonesSouthcoast Center for Weight Loss, Southcoast Physicians Group, 100 Rosebrook Way, Suite 300, Wareham, MA, 02571, USA.
M HumphreysCollege of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984350 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-5520, USA.
M daSilvaCollege of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984350 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-5520, USA.
S ChoudhuryCollege of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984350 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-5520, USA.
V ShostromDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984350 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-4350, USA.
E BoilesenDepartment of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 984350 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-4350, USA.
V KothariDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985126 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA.
D OleynikovDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985126 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA.
M GoedeDepartment of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, 985126 Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, 68198-6246, USA. mgoede@unmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeStudies comparing laparoscopic (LIHR) vs. open inguinal hernia repair (OIHR) have shown similar recurrence rates but have disagreed on perioperative outcomes and costs. The aim of this study is to compare laparoscopic vs. open outcomes and costs.

methodsThe National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was used to compare durations of surgery, anesthesia time, and length of stay (LOS). The University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) was used to review the cost and complications between approaches. Patients were matched on demographics, year of procedure and surgical approach between datasets for statistical analysis.

resultsA sample of 5468 patients undergoing OIHR (N = 4,693) or LIHR (N = 775) was selected from UHC from 2008-2011. An identical number of patients from NSQIP were matched to those from UHC resulting in a total of 10,936 records. LIHR patients had shorter duration of wait from admission to operation (p < 0.05). Conversely, LIHR patients had longer operating time (p < 0.05), duration of anesthesia (p < 0.05), and time in the operating room (p < 0.05).Overall complication rate was higher in open (3.1 vs. 1.8 %, p < 0.05). Cost favored open over LIHR ($4360 vs $5105). The cost discrepancy mainly stemmed from LIHR supplies ($1448 vs. $340; p < 0.05) and OR services ($1380 vs. $1080; p < 0.05).

conclusionThis study demonstrates the LOS and perioperative outcomes were superior in the LIHR group; however, the overall cost was higher due to the supplies. Advancement in technology, surgeons' skill level and preference of supplies are all factors in decreasing the overall cost of LIHR.

Indexed as

AgedAnesthesiaCost-Benefit AnalysisCost SavingsFemaleHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansLaparoscopyLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeRecurrenceTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeComparativeCostInguinal herniaLaparoscopyNSQIPUHC

Identifiers

PMID26874507

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.