ArticleThe Indian journal of surgery2015
Laparoscopic Versus Open Preperitoneal Mesh Repair of Inguinal Hernia: an Integrated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Published Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in The Indian journal of surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ambulatory bilateral groin hernia repair: open preperitoneal versus laparoscopic outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- Open vs. robot-assisted preperitoneal inguinal hernia repair. Are they truly clinically different?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- A 19 year population-based cohort study analysing reoperation for recurrence following laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repairs.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Article
- Open mesh and laparoscopic total extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair under spinal and general anesthesia.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2018Article
- Simultaneous laparoscopic cholecystectomy and transabdominal preperitoneal hernioplasty: two case reports evaluate the safety and surgical complications.Clinical case reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this article is to systematically analyse the randomized, controlled trials comparing open (OPPR) versus laparoscopic (LPPR) preperitoneal mesh repair of inguinal hernia. Randomized, controlled trials comparing OPPR versus LPPR of inguinal hernia were analysed systematically using RevMan®, and combined outcomes were expressed as odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD). Ten randomized trials evaluating 1286 patients were retrieved from the electronic databases. There were 606 patients in the OPPR repair group and 680 patients in the LPPR group. There was significant heterogeneity among trials (p < 0.0001). Therefore, in the random effects model, LPPR was associated with longer operative time and relatively lesser postoperative pain in the case of the trans-abdominal preperitoneal approach. Statistically, both OPPR and LPPR were equivalent in terms of developing chronic groin pain, recurrence and postoperative complications. OPPR of inguinal hernia is associated with shorter operative time and comparable with LPPR (both total extraperitoneal and trans-abdominal preperitoneal approaches) in terms of risk of chronic groin pain, recurrence and complications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.