Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2024
A comparative study between open pre-peritoneal approach versus laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach in recurrent inguinal hernia repair: a prospective cohort study.
Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2024. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison and Standardisation of Various Open Preperitoneal Techniques in Inguinal Hernia Surgery-Results of a Review and Consensus.Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS · 2025Review
- Comment to "A comparative study between open pre-peritoneal approach versus laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach in recurrent inguinal hernia repair: a prospective cohort study".Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Can robotic and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair ever replace Lichtenstein repair?Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2024Article
- Use of Knotless Barbed Sutures in Laparoscopic Inguinal Hernioplasty in Horses: 40 Cases.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe repair of recurrent inguinal hernias after prosthetic mesh repair is challenging due to the technical complexity and complications associated with it. As well as the increased risk of recurrence due to weakened tissues and distorted anatomy. The Posterior Pre-Peritoneal Approach yields significantly better results than the anterior approach due to its distance from previously scarred tissue.
objectiveTo compare the open pre-peritoneal approach and Laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach in the management of recurrent inguinal hernia which was previously managed through an open anterior approach regarding their intra-operative time, the postoperative outcomes in the form of hematoma, wound infection and finally the recurrence within 1-year follow-up. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe current study is a prospective cohort study, a single-center trial conducted from June 2021 to June 2022 in the general surgery department in Ain Shams University Hospitals, which included 74 patients presented with recurrent inguinal hernia who had previous open anterior approach 68(91.8%) males and 6(8.1%) females including a 1-year follow-up postoperative.
resultsThere were 74 patients in our study with 37 patients in each group. Group (I) underwent an open pre-peritoneal approach and group (II) underwent a Laparoscopic trans-abdominal pre-peritoneal approach. The mean age of the group (I) is 39.51 with a standard deviation of ± 3.49. While in group (II) the mean age is 39.37 with standard deviation ± 3.44 (p = 0.881). From the included 74 patients 67(91.8%) were males and 6(8.1%) were females. As regards the co-morbidities, in group (I) 17(45.9%) patients have no co-morbidities, 11(29.7%) patients have diabetes mellitus, 6(16.2%) patients have hypertension, and 3(8.1%) patients have diabetes and hypertension. Andin group (II) 26(70.3%) patients have no co-morbidities, 6(16.2%) patients have diabetes mellitus, 3(8.1%) patients have hypertension, and 2(5.4%) patients have diabetes and hypertension (p = 0.207). Regarding intra-operative time, the mean time in minutes in the group (I) is 63.33 with a standard deviation of ± 11.95. While in group (II) the mean time in minutes is 81.21 with a standard deviation of ± 18.03 (p = 0.015). The postoperative outcomes were assessed for 1-year follow-up in the form of hematoma, wound infection, and recurrence within 1 year. Regarding the hematoma occurred in 4(10.8%) patients in group (I). While in 2(5.4%) patients in group (II) (p = 0.674). The wound infection was found in 5(13.5%) patients in group(I) and zero patients in group (II) (p = 0.021). Finally, we followed up with the patients for about 1 year to detect the recurrence. Which was found in 3(8.1%) patients in group (I) and 1(2.7%) patient in group (II) (p = 0.615).
conclusionThe results of this study demonstrate that both the laparoscopic approach and the open posterior approach are effective for recurrent inguinal hernia following anterior approach mesh hernioplasty, with comparable results. Laparoscopy has been associated with a lower rate of recurrence and overall complications compared to open technique, however, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the preferred option due to its lengthy learning curve and difficulty to perform. Furthermore, the results of this study confirm the previously reported positive results of the posterior pre-peritoneal for recurrent inguinal hernia, particularly when performed by experienced surgeons. Therefore, further prospective randomized population-based trials are necessary to better assess the decision-making for recurrent hernia management and the impact of specialization in abdominal wall surgery in terms of recurrence and complications.
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.