ArticleActa cirurgica brasileira2025
Comparative analysis of unilateral inguinal hernia repair using Lichtenstein and Prolene hernia system techniques in a public teaching hospital: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Acta cirurgica brasileira, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare early- and medium-term postoperative outcomes of unilateral inguinal hernia repair performed using the Lichtenstein and Prolene hernia system (PHS) techniques in a public teaching hospital.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 897 patients undergoing primary unilateral inguinal hernioplasty (406 with Lichtenstein and 491 with PHS) from January 2011 to March 2025 was conducted. Clinical, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected and compared. Statistical analysis included t-tests, Mann-Whitney, Fisher's exact, and χ2 tests.
resultsGroups were not entirely homogeneous in preoperative profiles. The mean age was similar (p = 0.85), with predominance of males (94.87%). The operative time was significantly shorter for the PHS group (68.83 ± 24.84 versus 76.23 ± 26.90 min; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in postoperative complications, chronic pain, sensory dysfunction, or recurrence. Hospitalization was less frequent with the PHS technique (4.27 versus 12.8%; p < 0.01). Greater preference for local anesthesia was observed in the PHS group (20.77 versus 4.68%; p < 0.01).
conclusionBoth techniques proved effective and safe, but the PHS technique showed advantages regarding operative time and hospitalization rate. However, limited sample size and absence of cost and return-to-activity data restrict broader generalizations. Further prospective randomized studies are needed.
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.