ArticleCureus2023
Outcomes of Open Versus Laparoscopic Technique in Primary Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differences in the rates of seroma complications between hernial sac transection and reduction after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes of open versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair in Palestine: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Article
- Open versus laparoscopic techniques for incisional hernia repair: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2025Review
- Laparoscopic vs. open inguinal hernia repair outcomes in patients aged 65 years and older.Frontiers in surgery · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inguinal hernia repair is one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. In clinical practice, there are two different routes to repair inguinal hernias: laparoscopic mesh repair and open. Reducing the hernia and preventing recurrence remains the mainstay treatment option of both procedures. This study aims to compare postoperative outcomes and recurrence rates for patients who had primary, non-recurrent, laparoscopic, or open hernia repair in a single tertiary hospital. A retrospective cohort study was done on 468 patients. The study was conducted at King Abdulaziz University Hospital (KAUH) between 2013 and 2022. The distribution of our study population was divided into open hernia repair 378 participants (80.8%) while the rest did laparoscopic hernia repair 90 (19.2%). Operation duration in minutes was 107.158 ± 41.402 in the open hernia repair group and was noted to be significantly higher in the laparoscopic hernia repair group, with 142.811 ± 52.102 minutes p-value (0.000). The hospital length of stay was shown to be shorter in laparoscopic hernia repair (1.58 ±1.27) compared to open hernia repair (2.05±5.33). The most common postoperative complication was scrotal swelling, commonly associated with laparoscopic (5.55%) compared to 2.11% in open hernia repair. Open repair showed a risk of scrotal hematoma with a percentage of 0.52% compared to 0% in the laparoscopic method with a p-value (0.033). Hernia recurrence was non-related with any specific group, although noted to be higher in the laparoscopic group (7.77%), while in the open group (3.4%) with a p-value (0.081). The study conducted showed no alarming percentages for recurrence in either technique, open or laparoscopic, yet the open approach had a better outcome when it comes to scrotal pain and swelling post-operatively, chronic groin pain, and readmission rate as compared to laparoscopic technique, despite having a longer hospital stay. Future larger studies should be conducted to provide equal population inclusivity.
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.