ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2016
Recurrence mechanisms after inguinal hernia repair by the Onstep technique: a case series.
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 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open new simplified totally extraperitoneal (ONSTEP) versus Lichtenstein repair for primary inguinal hernias.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2021Trial
- Chronic pain after inguinal hernia repair with the ONSTEP versus the Lichtenstein technique, results of a double-blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2017Trial
- A registry-based 2-year follow-up comparative study of two meshes used in transinguinal preperitoneal (TIPP) groin hernia repair.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2021Article
- Comment to: Recurrence mechanisms after inguinal hernia repair by the Onstep technique: a case series.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Article
- Reply to comment to: Recurrence mechanisms after inguinal hernia repair by the Onstep technique: a case series.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeInguinal hernia repairs should have few complications and a short learning curve. A new operation called Onstep has promising results, but still some recurrences. The aim of the study was to find reasons for recurrence, by studying the re-operations.
methodsThe study is a case series, where 565 patients operated with Onstep at six hospitals between December 2011 and April 2015 were identified. If a recurrence had occurred, the description of the re-operation was studied and compared to the primary Onstep operation.
resultsWe found 26 inguinal hernia recurrences, giving a recurrence rate of 4.6 %. The reasons for recurrence were a cranial displacement of the mesh in five patients, a caudal displacement in three patients, a folded mesh in one patient, and broken sutures in the mesh laterally in six patients. We found indications of a learning curve, since 70 % of the recurrences had their primary operation among the first half of the total Onstep procedures. Another finding was that 30 patients had complaints from the ring in the mesh, and most of these patients were slender. Fifteen patients have had the ring removed, and for six patients with a follow-up, the complaints have been reduced or disappeared.
conclusionsThe main reasons for recurrence may be broken sutures in the mesh laterally or a suboptimal size of the opening in fascia transversalis medially, enabling the mesh to displace. Furthermore, the results suggest a learning curve. These findings may guide further improvement in the Onstep method for inguinal hernia repair.
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.