ArticleJournal of minimally invasive surgery2024
A retrospective noninferiority study of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair feasibility for recently graduated surgeons in Thailand.
Article in Journal of minimally invasive surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The feasibility of starting laparoscopic surgery among newly graduated surgeons lacking extensive experience in open approaches remains a topic of interest. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LHR) compared to open inguinal hernia repair (OHR) in this population. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted on inguinal hernia surgeries performed by a single recently graduated surgeon during the learning phase. Patient data were collected from July 2021 to November 2022 with a focus on demographics, intraoperative details, and 1-year postoperative outcomes. Noninferiority testing was employed with a predetermined margin of 15% to compare the complication rates, recurrence rates, and other secondary outcomes between LHR and OHR. Results: The study cohort comprised 66 patients (OHR group, n = 45 and LHR group, n = 21). Patient characteristics were similar between groups. No significant differences were observed in the complication rates (OHR, 26.7% and LHR, 19.0%; Conclusion: LHR is a feasible initiation for recently graduated surgeons, demonstrating noninferior outcomes compared with open repair. Therefore, the belief that one must master open surgery before beginning laparoscopy may be untrue.
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.