ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Diagnosis and Treatment of Inguinal Hernias after Surgical Treatment of Prostate Cancer, Current State of the Problem.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Purpose: To compare and evaluate the immediate and long-term results of the use of various hernioplasties for the treatment of inguinal hernias after surgical treatment of prostate cancer; to determine the possibility of performing transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) hernioplasty and total extraperitoneal (eTEP) hernioplasty in patients with inguinal hernia during surgical treatment of prostate cancer. (2) Method: This study is a clinical analytical prospective study, without the use of randomization. The study included 220 patients with inguinal hernia, who were randomly divided into two groups (group A (n = 100) and group B (n = 120)). Patients in group A received eTEP, and those in group B received TAPP. The end points of the study were the results associated with the operation itself and the prognosis of the disease in the two groups. (3) Results: Group A: five patients had a scrotal hematoma, in 10 cases nosocomial pneumonia or infectious complications from the postoperative wound. The overall rate of early postoperative complications was 15%. In group B, the following postoperative complications were reported: one case of intestinal injury, six cases of acute urinary retention, eight cases of scrotal hematoma and 12 cases of nosocomial pneumonia or infectious complications from the postoperative wound were admitted. The overall incidence of early postoperative complications was 22.5%. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the two groups (χ2 (3) = 2.54, p > 0.05). (4) Conclusion: During the analysis of the obtained results, no statistically significant difference was found in the duration of hospitalization, the volume of blood loss, the severity of pain syndrome, postoperative complication incidence and recurrence incidence (p > 0.05); however, the comparison groups differed in the duration of the operation: the operation time in group A was much longer compared to group B (p < 0.05).
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.