Trial reportScientific reports2020
A retrospective cohort study of open preperitoneal repair versus open suture repair for the treatment of emergency femoral hernia.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective analysis of open preperitoneal hernioplasty in emergency settings: clinical outcomes and challenges.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Observational
- Review
- Prospective comparison of two surgical approaches for incarcerated and strangulated inguinal hernia: preperitoneal hernioplasty through the lower abdominal median incision and laparoscope (TAPP).Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Managing ischemic and necrotic incarcerated femoral hernia contents and their risk factors.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Outcomes of Emergency Parastomal Hernia Repair in Older Adults: A Retrospective Analysis.The Journal of surgical research · 2024Article
- Bowel obstruction as a serious complication of patients with femoral hernia.Surgery today · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the outcomes of open preperitoneal repair (OPR) with the use of mesh and open suture repair (OSR) without mesh via inguinal approach for the treatment of emergency femoral hernia (FH). The primary outcome was the postoperative complication and the secondary outcomes were the recurrence rate of FH and the postoperative comfort level at the surgical site. 104 patients with emergency FHs were included, of whom 51 patients were treated with OPR, 53 patients were treated with OSR. Between the two groups, no significant difference was found in surgical site infection (SSI) (P = 0.801) or seroma (P = 0.843), while there was significant difference in the improvement of comfort at the surgical site (P = 0.013). The results of the 2-year follow-up demonstrated 1 and 8 cases of recurrence in the OPR and OSR group respectively, which was statistically significant (HR, 8.193 [95% CI, 1.024 to 65.547], P = 0.047). Compared with OSR, OPR with the use of mesh did not increase the risk of SSI and was safe to apply even under the condition of an emergency FH operation with intestine resection; OPR could reduce the recurrence rate of FH and improve the comfort at the surgical site.
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.