ArticleJournal of minimal access surgery2024
Feasibility and safety of redo laparoscopic repair of recurrent inguinal hernia following previous endolaparoscopic repair.
Article in Journal of minimal access surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of mesh displacement following laparoscopic enhanced view totally extraperitoneal technique: comparing mesh fixation and non-fixation in difficult inguinal hernias.Updates in surgery · 2026Trial
- ReTAPP for recurrent inguinal hernia after laparoscopic repair: extended experience and comparative analysis.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of different surgical approaches for recurrent inguinal hernia: a single-center observational study.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaparoscopic redo inguinal hernia (LRIH) repairs are fraught with challenges as the pre-peritoneal space is violated due to previous surgery and the presence of mesh. The purpose of this study was to present the feasibility and safety of LRIH in a series of patients with recurrent inguinal hernia following previous endolaparoscopic repair and present technical experiences and clinical outcomes in this subset of patients. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a retrospective study from a prospective database of 16 patients who underwent LRIH between March 2014 and December 2020. The decision to do a redo laparoscopic surgery was undertaken after a detailed discussion with the patient. The operative details, challenges faced and tips to overcome difficulties have been explained in detail.
resultsOut of 16 patients (mean age 49.5 years, all men), 15 underwent laparoscopic redo trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal (TAPP) mesh repair and 1 underwent laparoscopic enhanced-view totally extra-peritoneal (eTEP) mesh repair. The mean operating time was 68.5 min for unilateral, 115 min for bilateral TAPP and 90 min for eTEP. The main contributing factors for recurrences were mesh migration, insufficient size of the mesh and inadequate fixation. There was no conversion to open repair. The duration of stay was 1-2 days. There was no documented re-recurrence during the follow-up period of 2-9 years.
conclusionBased on our experience, redo laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair after previous endolaparoscopic repair is feasible, effective and safe in experienced hands.
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.