Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2026
Percutaneous internal ring suturing versus conventional laparoscopic repair of congenital inguinal hernia: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning Curve Analysis of Laparoscopic Intracorporeal Sac Transection and Purse-String Suture for Pediatric Inguinal Hernia Repair.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Can One-port Laparoscopic Percutaneous Internal Ring Suturing Technique be an Alternative to Conventional Laparoscopic Repair for Female Inguinal Hernia? - A Nonrandomized Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric SurgeonsArticle
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
backgroundLaparoscopic repair of congenital inguinal hernia (CIH) has evolved with techniques to minimize invasiveness while ensuring efficacy. This study compares percutaneous internal ring suturing (PIRS) with laparoscopic disconnection of the hernial sac and internal ring narrowing regarding feasibility, safety, operative time, cosmetic outcome, and recurrence rate.
methodsA prospective randomized study was conducted on 109 male patients with 120 CIHs. Patients were allocated into two groups: Group A (laparoscopic disconnection and internal ring narrowing) and Group B (PIRS). Perioperative parameters, postoperative complications, recurrence rates, and parental satisfaction with cosmetic results were assessed.
resultsThe mean operative time was significantly shorter in group B (8.5 ± 3.9 min for unilateral cases) compared to group A (40.8 ± 9.9 min) (p < 0.001). Postoperative spermatic cord edema occurred in 19.6% of Group A and 1.9% of Group B (p < 0.05). Recurrence rates were 5.4% in Group A and 1.9% in Group B (p > 0.05). Parental satisfaction with scarring was significantly higher in group B (p < 0.05).
conclusionIn this randomized trial, PIRS resulted in shorter operative time, lower incidence of spermatic cord edema, and higher parental satisfaction compared with conventional laparoscopic repair in pediatric patients with congenital inguinal hernia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II (Prospective randomized study).
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.