ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 cases.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure versus open repair in pediatric inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The detail profile of cause of recurrences after laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) in children: a systematic review.Pediatric surgery international · 2022Pooled it
- Perioperative effects of caudal block on pediatric patients in laparoscopic upper urinary tract surgery: a randomized controlled trial.BMC pediatrics · 2019Trial
- Mechanisms of recurrence after laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure for pediatric inguinal hernia: a single-center video review study.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- A 10-year review of pediatric inguinal hernia management at a tertiary center.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Error-based assessment of technical performance in pediatric laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair using the generic error rating tool: a retrospective observational study.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Observational
- Article
- Is the double-ligation method safe and effective in laparoscopic paediatric inguinal hernia repair? A retrospective cohort study.Journal of minimal access surgery · 2025Article
- Comparison of pain between laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) and open procedure for inguinal hernias in children below 5 years of age.Pediatric surgery international · 2024Article
- Outcomes from a new modified single needle laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure and cut off for pediatric inguinal hernia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of trans-umbilical single-port laparoscopic complete extraperitoneal closure and laparoscopic intracorporeal closure for pediatric inguinal hernia: a randomized controlled study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Clinical efficacy of laparoscopic treatment of pediatric inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2024Review
- Efficacy of a modified needle grasper for single-port laparoscopic hernia repair in children: a propensity score-matched analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2023Article
- Direct ligation of the internal ring incorporating the medial umbilical ligament (DIRIM): a new modification for laparoscopic percutaneous inguinal hernia repair in children.Pediatric surgery international · 2022Article
- Single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (SILPEC) for inguinal hernia with prolapsed ovary.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic Hernia Repair with the Extraperitoneal Approach versus Open Hernia Repair in Pediatric Inguinal Hernia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Inguinal hernia repair in inpatient children: a nationwide analysis of German administrative data.BMC surgery · 2021Article
- Comparison of laparoscopic percutaneous internal ring suturing method and open inguinal hernia repair in children under 3 months of age.Turkish journal of surgery · 2021Article
- Long-term outcomes of pediatric laparoscopic needled-assisted inguinal hernia repair: A 10-year experience.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2021Article
- Individualized treatment of pediatric inguinal hernia reduces adolescent recurrence rate: an analysis of 3006 cases.Surgery today · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroudRecently, laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC) has gained increased popularity for pediatric inguinal hernia repair. To improve cosmesis, we developed single incision LPEC (SILPEC). The aim of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of SILPEC compared with traditional open repair (OR).
methodsThis was a single-center retrospective cohort study of 2028 children who underwent inguinal hernia repair between April 2005 and August 2014. Nine hundred and ninety-five patients underwent OR and 1033 patients underwent SILPEC. Medical records were reviewed with respect to operative time, recurrence, incidence of contralateral metachronous inguinal hernia (CMIH), and complications. Patient satisfaction with cosmetic result was also investigated using questionnaires sent by mail.
resultsAll SILPEC procedures were completed without conversion. Operative time was longer in the SILPEC group than in the OR group for both unilateral and bilateral surgery regardless of sex (unilateral male: p = 0.0006, unilateral female: p < 0.0001, bilateral male: p < 0.0001, bilateral female: p < 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in recurrence rate (p = 0.43). The incidence of CMIH was significantly higher in the OR than in the SILPEC group (p < 0.0001). No postoperative testicular atrophy was found in either group. There was no statistically significant difference in ascending testis (p = 0.09), but the frequency of surgical site infection was higher in the SILPEC than in the OR group (p = 0.0013). According to the questionnaire, operative scar was more invisible in the SILPEC than in the OR group (p < 0.0001), but both procedures had equally high levels of satisfaction for cosmetic results (p = 0.58).
conclusionSILPEC proved to be a safe and feasible procedure compared with OR with an equally low recurrence rate, more effectiveness for preventing CMIH, and more invisible scar.
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.