SynthesisLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023
Sexual dysfunction between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of sexual function following Lichtenstein versus laparoscopic mesh repair in primary inguinal hernias, the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Pooled it
- Erectile Function Before and After Elective Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Paired IIEF-5 Study Comparing Laparoscopic and Open Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeSexual dysfunction after inguinal hernia complication is considered rare. However, its consequences impact on quality of life inevitably. Laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair may be comparable in terms of recurrent rate, overall complications, and chronic pain. Therefore, its complication is still questionable between these approaches. In this study, we compared sexual dysfunction and related complications between laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair.
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studies were performed to compare laparoscopic and open inguinal hernia repair. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used as pooled effect size measures.
resultThirty RCTs (12,022 patients) were included. Overall, 6014 (50.02%) underwent laparoscopic hernia repair, and 6008 (49.98%) underwent open hernia repair. Laparoscopic approach provided non-significance benefit on pain during sexual activity (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.18, 1.76), Vas deferens injury (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.13, 1.63), orchitis (RR 0.84; CI 0.61,1.17), scrotal hematoma (RR 0.99; CI 0.62,1.60), and testicular atrophy (RR 0.46; CI 0.17,1.20). Meanwhile, the open inguinal hernia approach seems to perform better for cord seroma complications and testicular pain.
conclusionThere is no advantage of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair over an open approach concerning sexual dysfunction. On the contrary, there is an increasing risk of cord seroma after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair with statistical significance.
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.