Trial reportAnnals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England2019
A randomised controlled trial of excision versus invagination in the management of indirect inguinal hernial sac.
Trial report in Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Hernia Sac Transection and Full Sac Reduction for the Treatment of Inguinal Hernias: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.World journal of surgery · 2025Pooled it
- A comparison of hernia sac ligation versus invagination in Lichtenstein tension-free mesh hernioplasty: does the type of hernia play a role in outcomes?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022Trial
- Lichtenstein technique for inguinal hernia repair: ten recommendations to optimize surgical outcomes.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- The Lichtenstein technique is being used adequately in inguinal hernia repair: national analysis and review of the surgical technique.Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLichtenstein tension-free mesh hernioplasty of primary inguinal hernia is currently considered as the preferred method for the plastic reconstruction of inguinal hernia by the majority of surgeons. Several studies have examined the best way to manage the hernial sac in this surgery, but no consensus has been reached. This study was designed to compare the effects of excision of sac and invagination of sac on post-operative outcomes. METHODS AND
methodsThis prospective randomised study included a total of 70 patients with primary unilateral uncomplicated indirect inguinal hernia. Group A (35 patients) underwent high dissection and invagination of the hernial sac and group B (35 patients) underwent high ligation and excision of the hernial sac. The repair of the posterior wall of the inguinal canal was done according to Lichtenstein tension-free technique. The primary outcome of this study was postoperative pain and secondary outcomes were wound infection, chronic sepsis, sinus formation, persistent pain, testicular atrophy and recurrence during the one-year follow-up period.
resultsThere was a significant difference (P < 0.01) in pain experienced by the patients in the immediate post-operative period between the two groups; group A experienced less postoperative pain than group B. There was no significant difference in incidence of infection between the groups.
conclusionsInvagination of the sac results in less postoperative pain compared with excision, with no significant difference in other postoperative outcomes.
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.