Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37310493›Full record

ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2023

An international survey of 1014 hernia surgeons: outcome of GLACIER (global practice of inguinal hernia repair) study.

K D L Nanayakkara, N G Viswanath, M Wilson, K Mahawar, S Baig, J Rosenberg, M Rosen, A J Sheen, E Goodman, A Prabhu and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Impact of cadaver training for learning abdominal wall reconstruction: our early experience.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024
    Article
  7. Exploring Groin Hernias: A Visual 3D Guide to Diagnosis and Treatment.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2024
    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

11 authors.

K D L NanayakkaraRoyal Derby Hospital, University Hospital Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Derby, UK. kushannanayakkara87@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1422-880X
N G ViswanathRoyal Derby Hospital, University Hospital Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Derby, UK.
M WilsonForth Valley NHS Trust, Larbert, UK.
K MahawarSouth Tyneside and Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland, UK.
S BaigBelle Vue Hospital, Kolkata, India.
J RosenbergDepartment of Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M RosenCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
A J SheenManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
E GoodmanMount Sinai Hospital, New York, USA.
A PrabhuCleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA.
B MadhokRoyal Derby Hospital, University Hospital Derby and Burton NHS Trust, Derby, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe practice of inguinal hernia repair varies internationally. The global practice of inguinal hernia repair study (GLACIER) aimed to capture these variations in open, laparoscopic, and robotic inguinal hernia repair.

methodsA questionnaire-based survey was created on a web-based platform, and the link was shared on various social media platforms, personal e-mail network of authors, and e-mails to members of the endorsed organisations, which include British Hernia Society (BHS), The Upper Gastrointestinal Surgical Society (TUGSS), and Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative (ACHQC).

resultsA total of 1014 surgeons from 81 countries completed the survey. Open and laparoscopic approaches were preferred by 43% and 47% of participants, respectively. Transabdominal pre-peritoneal repair (TAPP) was the favoured minimally invasive approach. Bilateral and recurrent hernia following previous open repair were the most common indications for a minimally invasive procedure. Ninety-eight percent of the surgeons preferred repair with a mesh, and synthetic monofilament lightweight mesh with large pores was the most common choice. Lichtenstein repair was the most favoured open mesh repair technique (90%), while Shouldice repair was the favoured non-mesh repair technique. The risk of chronic groin pain was quoted as 5% after open repair and 1% after minimally invasive repair. Only 10% of surgeons preferred to perform an open repair using local anaesthesia.

conclusionThis survey identified similarities and variations in practice internationally and some discrepancies in inguinal hernia repair compared to best practice guidelines, such as low rates of repair using local anaesthesia and the use of lightweight mesh for minimally invasive repair. It also identifies several key areas for future research, such as incidence, risk factors, and management of chronic groin pain after hernia surgery and the clinical and cost-effectiveness of robotic hernia surgery.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalLaparoscopySurgeonsHerniorrhaphyHumansIce CoverPainSurgical MeshChronic groin painGlobal variationsInguinal hernia

Identifiers

PMID37310493

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.