Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35286471›Full record

ReviewSurgical endoscopy2022

Open versus laparoscopic repair of inguinal hernia: an overview of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials.

Nafi'u Haladu, Adegoke Alabi, Miriam Brazzelli, Mari Imamura, Irfan Ahmed, George Ramsay, Neil W Scott

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nafi'u HaladuInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Adegoke AlabiInstitute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Miriam BrazzelliHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Mari ImamuraHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Irfan AhmedDepartment of Surgery, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK.
George RamsayHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Neil W ScottMedical Statistics Team, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK. n.w.scott@abdn.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8067-9660
University of Aberdeen · GBNHS Grampian · GB

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInguinal hernia has a lifetime incidence of 27% in men and 3% in women. Surgery is the recommended treatment, but there is no consensus on the best method. Open repair is most popular, but there are concerns about the risk of chronic groin pain. Laparoscopic repair is increasingly accepted due to the lower risk of chronic pain, although its recurrence rate is still unclear. The aim of this overview is to compare the risk of recurrence and chronic groin pain in laparoscopic versus open repair for inguinal hernia.

methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Only reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults published in English were included. Conference proceedings and editorials were excluded. The quality of the systematic reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist. Two outcomes were considered: hernia recurrence and chronic pain.

resultsTwenty-one systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Laparoscopic repair was associated with a lower risk of chronic groin pain compared with open repair. In the four systematic reviews assessing any laparoscopic versus any open repairs, laparoscopic repair was associated with a statistically significant (range: 26-46%) reduction in the odds or risk of chronic pain. Most reviews showed no difference in recurrence rates between laparoscopic and open repairs, regardless of the types of repair considered or the types of hernia that were studied, but most reviews had wide confidence intervals and we cannot rule out clinically important effects favouring either type of repair.

conclusionMeta-analyses suggest that laparoscopic repairs have a lower incidence of chronic groin pain than open repair, but there is no evidence of differences in recurrence rates between laparoscopic and open repairs.

Indexed as

Chronic PainHernia, InguinalLaparoscopyAdultHerniorrhaphyHumansMalePostoperative PainRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecurrenceSurgical MeshSystematic Reviews as TopicInguinal hernia surgeryLaparoscopic repairOpen repairOverview of systematic reviewsPrimary herniaRecurrent hernia

Identifiers

PMID35286471
PMCPMC9160137
OpenAlexW4221097569

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.