ArticleCureus2018
Comparison of Lichtenstein Repair and Mesh Plug Repair Methods in The Treatment of Indirect Inguinal Hernia.
Article in Cureus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of mesh-plug repair and Lichtenstein repair in the treatment of primary inguinal hernia.Updates in surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Open tensionless repair techniques for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Risk of adverse outcomes by plug and flat mesh following 90,319 open inguinal hernia repairs.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- A Case of an Anomalous Tract Involving the Cecum After Open Right Inguinal Hernia Repair.Cureus · 2022Article
- Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal repair versus open mesh plug repair for bilateral primary inguinal hernia.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe lifetime risk to develop an inguinal hernia is 27%-43% for men and 3%-6% for women. Methods of hernia repair currently involve prosthetic mesh applications. The aim of this study is to compare the Lichtenstein repair and Mesh-plug repair methods in the surgical treatment of indirect inguinal hernias and to identify which of these two techniques is superior regarding its conferred advantages. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, a total of 102 patients who were diagnosed with indirect inguinal hernia between the years 2014 and 2015 without a previous operation were analyzed. Patients undergoing Lichtenstein repair and Mesh-plug repair were compared, especially during operation time, hospital stay, postoperative pain and other aspects.
resultsThe mean age of patients was 28.7 years (19-73). The mean duration of operations and hospitalizations was significantly shorter in patients who had undergone mesh-plug repair. Inguinal pain in the operation area on postoperative day one, two weeks and six months was significantly less in patients who had undergone mesh-plug repair. Patients were followed-up for two years.
conclusionWe concluded that mesh-plug repair was superior to Lichtenstein repair regarding postoperative pain, quality of life of the patient, shorter duration of operation, and duration of hospital stay although the two methods were similar regarding both recurrence and complication rates. Considering this information, we suggest that mesh-plug repair can be used safely for the treatment of indirect inguinal hernias.
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.