ArticleSurgery today2025
Advantages of ultrasound-guided reduction and elective surgery versus emergency repair for incarcerated obturator hernia.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. 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.
- Ultrasound-guided manual reduction for incarcerated obturator hernia: a bridge to elective surgery or a pragmatic non-operative strategy.Surgery today · 2026Article
- Incremental value of hernia-sac CT attenuation beyond symptom duration for predicting bowel resection in incarcerated obturator hernia: a single-site retrospective cohort study.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the benefits of ultrasound-guided reduction (UGR) followed by elective versus emergency repair for incarcerated obturator hernia (OH).
methodsThis is a retrospective cohort study. Before UGR implementation, all patients with incarcerated OH underwent emergency surgery. To compare the UGR candidates fairly, only patients who did not require bowel resection were classified as the emergency group. Following UGR implementation, the patients without bowel necrosis, based on our criteria, underwent UGR. Among these, those who underwent elective repair were classified into the elective group. The surgical outcomes were compared between the groups and are presented as the median (range).
resultsAmong the 60 patients with incarcerated OH, 23 were in the emergency group and 11 in the elective group. UGR was successful in 16 of 17 cases (94%). The elective group had significantly shorter times to first defecation (4 [1-7] vs. 0 [0-1]) and meal initiation (3 [1-8] vs. 1 [1-3] days) than the emergency group. Although not statistically significant, the mesh repair rate was higher in the elective group (100% vs. 78%, respectively).
conclusionsUGR can be safely performed with an appropriate diagnosis. Compared with emergency surgery, UGR followed by elective repair led to reduced postoperative ileus and elevated mesh repair rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39934308What 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.