ReviewJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025
Comparison and Standardisation of Various Open Preperitoneal Techniques in Inguinal Hernia Surgery-Results of a Review and Consensus.
Review in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Both open and laparoendoscopic preperitoneal mesh techniques are good options for the treatment of inguinal hernias. The 2023 updated HerniaSurge Guidelines recommend open preperitoneal mesh techniques as an acceptable alternative to Lichtenstein repair if a competent and experienced surgeon is available. However, although numerous open preperitoneal surgical techniques have been developed, only a few comparative studies comparing them are available. Because of the lack of scientific evidence and standardisation, the aim of this article is to define comparable standards and compare four frequently used open preperitoneal techniques. Method: Using a Delphi-consensus process among both the authors and experts in the field, various key steps for each procedure, indications, and outcome parameters were set to allow adequate comparison of different open preperitoneal techniques. Results: We present four different and frequently used open preperitoneal techniques: Minimal Open PrePeritoneal repair (MOPP), TransInguinal PrePeritoneal repair (TIPP), TransREctus sheat PrePeritoneal repair (TREPP), and Open New Simplifyed Total Extraperitoneal repair (ONSTEP). We provide a clear and comparable standard regarding the best indication, different procedural steps, the use of meshes and fixation, the learning curve involved, and possible complications and limitations. We also identify some similarities for the techniques but also specific differences on different topics. Conclusion: Development, validation, and implementation of these standards for the various open preperitoneal techniques are necessary both for education and training as well as for future comparative studies.
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.