Trial reportUpdates in surgery2023
Needlescopic sutureless repair of congenital inguinal hernia: A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Updates in surgery, 2023. 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.
- Percutaneous internal ring suturing versus conventional laparoscopic repair of congenital inguinal hernia: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Article
- Review
- Laparoscopic disconnection of the hernial sac: is it enough for the treatment of congenital inguinal hernia in children?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2025Article
- The use of needle arthroscope as an alternative to standard laparoscope for prophylactic gastropexy in a dog.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Congenital inguinal hernia [CIH] can be treated laparoscopically using various methods documented in the literature. Many authors have recommended dividing the sac and stitching peritoneal defects. Other studies claimed that peritoneal disconnection alone is sufficient. In this study, the feasibility, operative time, recurrence rate, and other postoperative complications of needlescopic disconnection of the CIH sac with or without peritoneal defect suturing were compared. A prospective controlled randomized trial was conducted between January 2020 and December 2022. Two hundred and thirty patients who met the study requirements were included. Patients were assigned at random to either Group A or Group B. A group of 116 patients (Group A) had needlescopic separation of the neck of the sac and peritoneal defect closure. The remaining 114 patients (Group B) underwent needlescopic separation without peritoneal defect closure (Sutureless group). A total of 260 hernial defects in 230 patients were repaired using needlescopic disconnection with or without suturing of the defect. There were 89 females (38.7%) and 141 males (61.3%), with a mean age of 5.14 ± 2.79 years. In Group A, the mean operation time was 27.98 ± 2.89 for a unilateral hernia and 37.29 ± 4.68 for a bilateral one, whereas, in Group B, the mean operation time was 20.37 ± 2.37 and 23.38 ± 2.22 for a unilateral and bilateral hernia, respectively. In terms of the operating time, whether unilateral or bilateral, there was a significant difference between the groups. There was no significant difference between groups A and B in the mean Internal Ring Diameter [IRD], which was 1.21 ± 0.18 cm in group A and 1.19 ± 0.11 cm in group B. Throughout the follow-up period, there was no postoperative hydrocele formation, recurrence, iatrogenic ascending of the testes, or testicular atrophy. All patients had nearly invisible scars with no keloid development at 3 months follow-up. Needlescopically separating the hernia sac without stitching the peritoneal defect is feasible, safe, and less invasive. It provides outstanding cosmetic results with a short operative time and no recurrence.
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.