Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34938640›Full record

ArticleCureus2021

Open Versus Laparoscopic Ventral Hernia Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Chirag Pereira, Rakesh Rai

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

2 authors.

Chirag PereiraGeneral Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, IND.
Rakesh RaiGeneral Surgery, Father Muller Medical College and Hospital, Mangalore, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction With the advancement in technology as well as surgical techniques, laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) is more commonly being performed as compared to open repair in various centres throughout the world. Our study aimed to compare the short-term operative outcomes between LVHR and open repair. Materials and methods Sixty patients diagnosed with noncomplicated ventral hernias were included in this prospective study and were randomly divided into the laparoscopic group and the open group. The two groups were compared to evaluate operative time, postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and time taken to return to normal activity. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results Mean operative time was longer in LVHR (116 min) as compared to open repair (67 min)(p<0.01). Patients experienced more pain on the first and seventh postoperative days in the open group (p<0.01) and they also had a longer duration of hospital stay as compared to the laparoscopic group (6.23 ± 0.35 vs 2.17 ± 1.12 days, p = 0.02). Patients in the laparoscopic group returned to normal activity faster as compared to the open group (1.47 ± 0.11 vs 2.87 ± 0.34, p<0.01). Conclusion LVHR carries a significant advantage over open hernia repair, especially in terms of reduced postoperative pain, duration of hospital stay, and early resumption of normal activity.

Indexed as

hernialaparoscopic ventral hernia repairopen ventral hernia repairpost operative painventral hernia

Identifiers

PMID34938640
PMCPMC8684829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.