Observational studyBMC surgery2021
A comparison of postoperative outcomes after open and laparoscopic reduction of Petersen's Hernia: a multicenter observational cohort study.
Observational study in BMC surgery, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Frontiers: A Comparative Review of Robotics Versus Laparoscopy in Gynecological Interventions.Cureus · 2023Review
- Risk Factor and Surgical Outcome of Petersen's Hernia After Gastrectomy in Gastric Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 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
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this multicenter cohort study was to compare the clinical courses between open and laparoscopic Petersen's hernia (PH) reduction.
methodWe retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients who underwent PH repair surgery after gastrectomy for gastric cancer from 2015-2018. Forty patients underwent PH reduction operations that were performed by six surgeons at four hospitals. Among the 40 patients, 15 underwent laparoscopic PH reduction (LPH), and 25 underwent open PH reduction (OPH), including 4 patients who underwent LPH but required conversion to OPH.
resultsWe compared the clinical factors between the LPH and OPH groups. In the clinical course, we found no differences in operation times or intraoperative bowel injury, morbidity, or mortality rates between the two groups (p > 0.05). However, the number of days on a soft fluid diet (OPH vs. LPH; 5.8 vs. 3.7 days, p = 0.03) and length of hospital stay (12.6 vs. 8.2 days, p = 0.04) were significantly less in the LPH group than the OPH group. Regarding postoperative complications, the OPH group had a case of pneumonia and sepsis with multi-organ failure, which resulted in mortality. In the LPH group, one patient experienced recurrence and required reoperation for PH.
conclusionLaparoscopic PH reduction was associated with a faster postoperative recovery period than open PH reduction, with a similar incidence of complications. The laparoscopic approach should be considered an appropriate strategy for PH reduction in selected cases.
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.