ArticlePediatric surgery international2024
Comparison of the results of open repair and laparoscopic repair with the PIRS method in the treatment of hydrocele in children.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A novel technique of a laparoscopic percutaneous guide wire for extraperitoneal internal ring closure in the management of a pediatric communicating hydrocele.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Extraperitoneal repair using modified single-port mini-nephroscopy for pediatric hydrocele: surgical outcomes in 65 children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHydrocele is a result of intraperitoneal fluid filling into the scrotum through the patent processus vaginalis (PPV). While the traditional approach of pediatric hydrocele has been open repair (OR) for years, laparoscopic repair (LR) of hydrocele has been accepted worldwide after the proven efficacy of laparoscopy. The purpose is to compare the outcomes of both techniques in a single center.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of all the patients who underwent hydrocele repair from August 2016 to November 2022. In our center, the standard approach was OR in hydrocele until the November of 2021. Starting from this date, LR has begun to be preferred, as the experience has increased and its success has been observed. In the LR group, single-port percutaneous internal ring suturing technique was performed.
resultsThe data of 113 patients (OR 58.4% (n = 66), LR 41.6% (n = 47)) were collected. In preoperative examination, 12.4% (n = 14) patients were diagnosed as communicating and 87.6% (n = 99) non-communicating hydrocele. Intraoperatively, 65.5% (n = 74) patients were communicating and 34.5% (n = 39) were non-communicating. Total recurrence rate was 7% (n = 8). The OR group experienced a recurrence rate of 10.6% (n = 7), while the LR group experienced 2.12% (n = 1).
conclusionLaparoscopy may reveal intrabdominal connection of hydrocele better than open approach. It provides a high quality view of both inguinal rings and has the advantages of minimally invasive surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38347161What 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.