Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40407912›Full record

Trial reportHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025

Comparison of open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in the elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Mehmet Esref Ulutas, Abdullah Hilmi Yilmaz

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT06417346 (Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Inguinal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

NCT06417346 naunknown statusnot on this map

Comparison of Laparoscopic and Open Inguinal Hernia Repair in Elderly Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorMehmet Eşref UlutaşRan2023 to 2024Enrolled160ConditionsUrinary Retention, Postoperative Complications, Pain, RelapseArmsLaparoscopic TEP Repair, Open Technique (Lichtenstein)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mehmet Esref UlutasDepartment of Surgery, University of Health Science, Gaziantep City Hospital, Şahinbey/Gaziantep, Turkey. esref_ulutas@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-9206-4348
Abdullah Hilmi YilmazDepartment of Surgery, University of Health Science, Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-9920-3902

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIt is well known that inguinal hernia repair in geriatric patients carries a higher risk of postoperative complications compared to younger patients. One of the key factors influencing these complications is the surgical technique employed. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the impact of laparoscopy on elderly patients. This prospective randomized study aims to compare the outcomes of laparoscopic and open hernia repair techniques in this patient population.

methodsBetween April 2023 and April 2024, 120 consecutive patients aged 65 years and older with inguinal hernia were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the laparoscopic TEP group (n = 60) and the open (Lichtenstein) procedure group (n = 60). The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06417346). The primary outcome of this study was the comparison of postoperative complication rates. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of hernia types, operative times, postoperative pain levels, and recurrence rates.

resultsA total of 120 patients were followed up for 12 months. The mean age was 71.7 ± 6.5 years in the open group and 69.6 ± 3.9 years in the TEP group (p = 0.18). The mean operative time was 35.8 ± 7.8 min in the open group and 36.3 ± 8.7 min in the TEP group (p = 0.92). The mean time to return to normal daily activities was 10.6 ± 4.3 days in the open group and 7.5 ± 2.4 days in the TEP group (p < 0.001). On postoperative day 1, the VAS score was 3.7 ± 1.3 in the open group and 2.9 ± 1.1 in the TEP group (p < 0.001). At the end of the first month, the VAS score was 2.6 ± 1.0 in the open group and 1.7 ± 0.9 in the TEP group (p < 0.001). Chronic pain was observed in 6 patients (10%) in the open group and 1 patient (1.7%) in the TEP group (p = 0.05). No complications occurred in 51 patients (85%) in the open group and 52 patients (86.7%) in the TEP group (p = 0.84). Recurrent inguinal hernia was detected in 4 patients (6.7%) in the open group and 1 patient (1.7%) in the TEP group (p = 0.17).

conclusionBased on the data obtained from our study, laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair in elderly patients was found to offer advantages such as faster recovery, reduced postoperative and chronic pain, without an increase in complications. Given these benefits, laparoscopic hernia repair can be considered a safe and preferable approach for elderly patients.

trial registrationClinical trials number: NCT06417346.

Indexed as

Hernia, InguinalHerniorrhaphyLaparoscopyAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPostoperative PainProspective StudiesRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeComplicationElderlyGeriatricInguinal herniaLaparoscopicOpen

Identifiers

PMID40407912
PMCPMC12101994

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.