Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40177348›Full record

ReviewJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025

Comparison and Standardisation of Various Open Preperitoneal Techniques in Inguinal Hernia Surgery-Results of a Review and Consensus.

Ralph Lorenz, Willem Akkersdijk, Gabriel Paiva De Oliveira, Marc Soler, Jean-Francois Gillion, Augusto Lourenço, Rui Soares Da Costa, Edouard Pelissier, Franz Ugahary, Frederik Berrevoet

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ralph LorenzHernia Center 3+CHIRURGEN, Berlin, Germany.
Willem AkkersdijkSurgical Department, St Jansdal Hospital, Harderwijk, Netherlands.
Gabriel Paiva De OliveiraDepartment for General Surgery, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.
Marc SolerService de Chirurgie Viscérale et Digestive, Clinique Saint-Jean, Cagnes-sur-Mer, France.
Jean-Francois GillionSurgical Department, Ramsay Sante Hôpital Privé d'Antony, Antony, France.
Augusto LourençoFaculty of Healthcare Sciences, Beira Interior University, Covilhã, Portugal.
Rui Soares Da CostaDepartment for General Surgery, Hospital Lusíadas Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Edouard PelissierInstitut de la Hernie Paris, Paris, France.
Franz UgaharyFormer General and Vascular Surgeon (NP), Ziekenhuis Rivierenland Tiel, Tiel, Netherlands.
Frederik BerrevoetDepartment of General and HPB Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

groin herniasMOPPONSTEPopen preperitoneal techniquesTIPP, TREPP

Identifiers

PMID40177348
PMCPMC11961359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.