SynthesisHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Comparison of totally extraperitoneal versus Lichtenstein operation under local or general anesthesia for inguinal hernia: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis compared totally extraperitoneal (TEP) laparoscopic repair with open Lichtenstein repair performed under local or general anaesthesia for unilateral inguinal hernia, asking whether the surgical or anaesthetic approach affects postoperative safety, pain and functional recovery.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science were searched to 1 April 2025. Eighteen randomized and observational studies comprising 4302 patients met predefined inclusion criteria. Pooled risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed or randomeffects models; heterogeneity, sensitivity analyses and publication bias were assessed..
resultsNo significant recurrence difference between TEP and Lichtenstein (RR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.51, 1.40]). TEP significantly reduced early-Stage Pain (RR = 0.62, 95% CI [0.49, 0.79]), wound infection (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.91]) and accelerated return to normal activities (MD = -4.44, 95% CI [-6.06, -2.85]). Hematoma, seroma and hospital stay were similar. TEP had longer operative time (MD = 8.22 min, 95%CI[1.00,15.44]), but this gap disappeared in post-2013 studies. Subgroup analysis found that the lower infection risk of TEP was only significant when compared with Lichtenstein repair under local anesthesia (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.08, 0.96]).Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the results, and no publication bias was detected.
conclusionTEP and Lichtenstein repair are comparably safe and effective for inguinal hernia repair. TEP may reduce postoperative pain and wound infections, whereas Lichtenstein repair with local anesthesia is suitable for high-risk cardiopulmonary patients. Surgical choice depends on patient, anesthesia, and expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40760336What 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.