Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32447533›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2020

Value and patient appreciation of follow-up after endoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair.

W J Bakker, C V van Hessen, G J Clevers, E J M M Verleisdonk, J P J Burgmans

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Varying convalescence recommendations after inguinal hernia repair: a systematic scoping review.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2022
    Article
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

5 authors.

W J BakkerDepartment of Surgery, Hernia Clinic, Diakonessenhuis, Room Secretariaat Heelkunde, Professor Lorentzlaan 76, Zeist, 3707 HL, Utrecht, The Netherlands. wbakker1@diakhuis.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-2128
C V van HessenDepartment of Surgery, Hernia Clinic, Diakonessenhuis, Room Secretariaat Heelkunde, Professor Lorentzlaan 76, Zeist, 3707 HL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
G J CleversDepartment of Surgery, Hernia Clinic, Diakonessenhuis, Room Secretariaat Heelkunde, Professor Lorentzlaan 76, Zeist, 3707 HL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E J M M VerleisdonkDepartment of Surgery, Hernia Clinic, Diakonessenhuis, Room Secretariaat Heelkunde, Professor Lorentzlaan 76, Zeist, 3707 HL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J P J BurgmansDepartment of Surgery, Hernia Clinic, Diakonessenhuis, Room Secretariaat Heelkunde, Professor Lorentzlaan 76, Zeist, 3707 HL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is some consensus on inguinal hernia surgery follow-up in research settings. However, consensus on regular follow-up is lacking. Therefore, patients and surgeons are unnecessarily burdened and not cost-efficient. Moreover, the purpose of follow-up is barely questioned. This study aims to evaluate follow-up after inguinal hernia repair and determine patient satisfaction.

methodsThis prospective cohort study was executed in a high-volume specialized hernia clinic. All totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair patients between July and October 2016 were included. Telephone follow-up was performed at 1 day, 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively. One year postoperatively it was assessed whether patients visited other healthcare organizations, had remaining inguinal complaints, a Post-INguinal-repair-Questionnaire by telephone (PINQ-PHONE) was executed, and appreciation with follow-up was determined.

resultsRespectively, 6 weeks and 1 year postoperatively, 138 (79.3%) and 130 (74.7%) of 174 included patients were reached. One year postoperatively 15 patients (11.5%) had remaining inguinal complaints, of which only four patients (3.1%) had not already reported their symptoms. Nineteen patients (14.6%) presented with self-reported complaints between 6 weeks and 1 year, and no patients went to other hospitals. Respectively, 107 (82.3%), 61 (46.9%) and 117 (90.0%) patients considered follow-up useful at 6 weeks, 1 year and in general. One hundred nineteen patients (91.5%) preferred telephone follow-up to outpatient clinic appointments.

conclusionTEP patients value a telephone follow-up time-point, however, long-term follow-up is not considered useful. Patients report postoperative complaints themselves, therefore performing follow-up serves no clinical purpose. The purpose of follow-up is patient satisfaction and registration for quality objectives.

Indexed as

EndoscopyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSurgical MeshFollow-upInguinal herniaPatient satisfactionRegistrationTEPTotally extraperitoneal

Identifiers

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.