ArticleMedicine2018
Application of shaft method assisted biological mesh in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond acronyms: a domain-based structural analysis of abdominal wall hernia repair techniques in the contemporary literature.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- How Reproducible Are Abdominal Wall Surgical Techniques? A Methodological Assessment of Technical Reporting in the Contemporary Literature.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the feasibility and advantage of traditional tiling method and shaft method to place biological mesh following laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia.Sixty cases from January 2013 to January 2014 treated with laparoscopic inguinal hernia neoplasty with biological patches were included. All the cases were randomly divided into control group and observation group. Observation group was treated with shaft method to place biological mesh, while control group was treated with traditional tiling method. The length of the operation, hospital fees, and rate of occurrence of surgical complications were compared.All 60 cases were successfully treated with laparoscope inguinal hernia repair. None were converted to open operations. Total operation times for the observation group and control group were 54 ± 4.5 and 71 ± 7.2 minutes, respectively (P < .05). The hospital fees of the observation group and control group were 21,280 ± 365 RenMinBi Yuan (RMB) and 24,280 ± 428 RMB, respectively (P < .05). The rates of occurrence of surgical complications were 3.33% (1/30) and 16.7% (5/30), respectively (P < .05).The shaft method can be applied in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with biological mesh. Compared with the traditional method, the shaft method has apparent advantages, fewer complications during and after the operation.
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.