Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29931383›Full record

ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2018

[HerniaSurge: international guidelines on treatment of inguinal hernia in adults : Comments of the Surgical Working Group Hernia (CAH/DGAV) and the German Hernia Society (DHG) on the most important recommendations].

D Weyhe, J Conze, A Kuthe, F Köckerling, B J Lammers, R Lorenz, H Niebuhr, W Reinpold, K Zarras, R Bittner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Redo TEP in recurrent inguinal hernia After TEP/TAPP: Outcomes and feasibility.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

D WeyheMedizinischer Campus Universität Oldenburg, Universitätsklinik für Viszeralchirurgie, Pius-Hospital Oldenburg, Georgstr. 12, 26121, Oldenburg, Deutschland. dirk.weyhe@pius-hospital.de.
J ConzeUM Hernienzentrum Dr. Conze, München, Deutschland.
A KutheDRK-Krankenhaus Clementinenhaus, Hannover, Deutschland.
F KöckerlingVivantes Klinikum, Berlin, Deutschland.
B J LammersDepartment Kolorektal- und Hernienchirurgie, Klinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Gefäßchirurgie, Lukaskrankenhaus Neuss, Neuss, Deutschland.
R Lorenz3Chirurgen, Berlin, Deutschland.
H NiebuhrHanse Chirurgie, Chirurgie & Orthopädie Bergedorf, Hamburg, Deutschland.
W ReinpoldKlinik Fleetinsel, Hamburg, Deutschland.
K ZarrasKlinik für Allgemein‑, Viszeral- und Minimalinvasive Chirurgie, Marien Hospital Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
R BittnerHernienzentrum Rottenburg a.N., Winghofer Medicum Plus GmbH, Rottenburg a.N., Deutschland.
Klinik und Poliklinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde · DELukaskrankenhaus · DEMarien Hospital Düsseldorf · DEPius Hospital Oldenburg · DEVivantes Klinikum · DEWinghofer Medicum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

surgical techniquesThe HerniaSurge guidelines have the highest evidence with respect to a strong recommendation for mesh-based surgical techniques. This evidence is equally valid for the Lichtenstein procedure as for the minimally invasive procedures TEP/TAPP. In the case of discrete symptomatic or asymptomatic inguinal hernias, watchful waiting can be an option, taking into account health status and social circumstances. Femoral hernias, on the other hand, should be treated promptly with mesh insertion. Also favored are laparoendoscopic techniques. The Shouldice repair achieves the least recurrences from the suturing procedures and may be an acceptable alternative when indicated or when the patient does not desire mesh reinforcement. In this case, a detailed patient education is necessary. MESH CHOICE: The complication potential of plastic meshes should be explained. The weight is no longer considered a suitable parameter for the classification of meshes and is no longer recommended for mesh selection. Large pore (>1-1.5 mm) monofilament implants have the best integration potential and should have a tear strength of approximately 16 Nm PERIOPERATIVE AND POSTOPERATIVE ASPECTS: Perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in open repair procedures is recommended only in patients with an increased risk of infections. In laparoendoscopic procedures, antibiotic prophylaxis should not be performed or used with the utmost restraint. Careful preparation reduces chronic inguinal and testicular pain. In the case of interference of mesh and nerve, the nerve can be resected. A return to daily activity is recommended within 3-5 days. QUALITY ASSURANCE: The documentation of patient data should be done by establishing hernia registers for quality assurance and for the development of further treatment options. The implementation of the guidelines is supported by HerniaSurge.

Indexed as

Hernia, FemoralHernia, InguinalLaparoscopyAdultGroinHerniorrhaphyHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicRecurrenceSurgical MeshGuidelinesHerniaSurgeInguinal hernia

Identifiers

PMID29931383
OpenAlexW2808724050

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.