Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33616732›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Comparison of surgical outcomes between laparoscopic percutaneous extracorporeal closure (LPEC) and open repair for pediatric inguinal hernia by propensity score methods and log-rank test analysis.

Soichi Shibuya, Takaaki Imaizumi, Susumu Yamada, Shiho Yoshida, Shunsuke Yamada, Yoshie Toba, Toshiaki Takahashi, Eiji Miyazaki

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

8 authors.

Soichi ShibuyaDepartment of Pediatric General and Urogenital Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan. soshibu@juntendo.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-4274-1312
Takaaki ImaizumiDepartment of Pediatric General and Urogenital Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan.
Susumu YamadaDepartment of Pediatric General and Urogenital Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan.
Shiho YoshidaDepartment of Pediatric General and Urogenital Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan.
Shunsuke YamadaDepartment of Pediatric General and Urogenital Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan.
Yoshie TobaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, 2-12-12, Sumiyoshi, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, 430-8558, Japan.
Toshiaki TakahashiDepartment of Pediatric General and Urogenital Surgery, Juntendo University School of Medicine, 2-1-1 Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8421, Japan.
Eiji MiyazakiDepartment of Pediatric Surgery, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, 2-12-12, Sumiyoshi, Naka-ku, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, 430-8558, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a number of studies comparing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LH) and open herniorrhaphy (OH), the putative advantage of LH remains controversial due to a paucity of firm evidence. We hypothesized that LH has both advantages and disadvantages compared to OH and sought to clarify them by comprehensively analyzing the retrospective data using the combination of multiple statistical methods.

methodsOperative data for inguinal hernia during the period from February 1999 to December 2019 were examined. The patients were assigned into two groups according to the surgical procedure: laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure (LPEC, n = 2410) and OH (n = 2038). Operative and anesthesia times and incidence of postoperative complications were evaluated using the propensity score methods and log-rank test.

resultsIn comparison with OH, operative time of LPEC was longer for unilateral repair (21.59 ± 8.1 min vs 18.01 ± 8.0 min; p < 0.001) and shorter for bilateral repairs (28.55 ± 10.1 min vs 33.23 ± 11.7 min; p < 0.001), while anesthesia times were longer for both unilateral repair (57.67 ± 10.1 min vs 40.62 ± 11.9 min; p < 0.001) and bilateral repairs (65.95 ± 12.5 min vs 56.35 ± 15.1 min; p < 0.001). LPEC significantly reduced the risk of metachronous contralateral hernia (MCLH) (0.52% vs 9.29%; p < 0.001), but the recurrence rate was higher (0.21% vs 0.04%; p = 0.002) than OH. Orchiectomy due to testicular atrophy or torsion was required in 3 cases of OH (0.19%), whereas it was not seen in LPEC.

conclusionsLPEC had a less risk of MCLH and testicular complications but was associated with a higher recurrence rate and longer anesthesia time. Propensity scoring techniques can enhance the robustness of retrospective comparisons between groups over several years of data collection, which is frequently required in pediatric surgery studies.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopyChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHerniorrhaphyHumansInfantMalePropensity ScoreRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeExtracorporeal approachInguinal herniaLaparoscopic surgeryMetachronous contralateral herniaPropensity scoreRecurrence

Identifiers

PMID33616732

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.