ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2022
Comparison study of three laparoscopic ligation procedures for pediatric inguinal hernia: a multicenter cohort of 5523 cases.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Efficacy of transumbilical single-port and two-port laparoscopy in the treatment of pediatric inguinal hernia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Open versus laparoscopic indirect inguinal hernia repair in children: a ten-year retrospective review of laparoscopic percutaneous internal ring suturing.Pediatric surgery international · 2025Article
- Laparoscopic-assisted extraperitoneal ligation versus intraperitoneal suturing for pediatric inguinal hernia repair: a multicenter, observational study of recurrence.World journal of pediatric surgery · 2025Article
- Outcomes from a new modified single needle laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal closure and cut off for pediatric inguinal hernia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSingle-site laparoscopic percutaneous extraperitoneal ligation (SLPEL) for pediatric inguinal hernia has gained popularity worldwide. However, complications associated with extraperitoneal knotting are not rare. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a modified SLPEL (M-SLPEL) to decrease adverse events associated with ligation knotting by comparing it with two other methods: classical SLPEL (C-SLPEL) and intracorporeal purse-string suturing (IPS).
methodsA multicenter retrospective comparative study was conducted among 5523 pediatric inguinal hernia patients. Cases were divided into three groups according to the surgical procedure: the M-SLPEL, C-SLPEL, and IPS groups. Data describing the clinical characteristics, operative time, and complications were collected.
resultsAll procedures were performed uneventfully. There were no significant differences in the age at operation (mean 2.62 ± 1.38 years). The operative time was shorter in the M-SLPEL group both for unilateral hernias (12.5 ± 1.8 min in C-SLPEL, 11.7 ± 1.3 min in M-SLPEL, and 17.6 ± 2.9 min in IPS) and for bilateral hernias (15.1 ± 2.1 min, 14.6 ± 1.7 min, and 23.9 ± 2.3 min, respectively). The overall incidence of adverse events in the inguinal region was 0% for M-SLPEL, 2.2% for C-SLPEL, and 0.5% for IPS. All patients were followed up for 12-93 months (mean 54 months). Recurrence occurred in 8 cases in the C-SLPEL group, 1 case in the M-SLPEL group, and 8 cases in the IPS group, with no significance between groups. No scrotal hematoma, testicular atrophy, or iatrogenic cryptorchidism occurred in any group.
conclusionThe M-SLPEL procedure has time-consumption efficiency equivalent to that of C-SLPEL and even fewer adverse events in the inguinal region than IPS and C-SLPEL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35504975What 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.