ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2025
Metachronous reoperation for recurrent and non-recurrent inguinal hernia after primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair: propensity score matched analysis of large US claims database.
Article 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Longitudinal assessment of recurrence after open versus laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair in 272,475 patients.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInguinal hernia is a common occurrence affecting one in four men. Recurrence is a major clinical pitfall that affects about 10% of patients with increased recurrence and postoperative complications after a revision repair. Reoperation due to metachronous contralateral inguinal hernia is another possible outcome. The impact of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) techniques on inguinal hernia recurrence rates as compared to open surgery is less clear and further confounded by the adoption of robotic approaches. The aim of this study was to compare reoperation rates.
methodsAdult patients who underwent primary unilateral inguinal hernia repair (IHR) in an outpatient setting between January 2015 and December 2021 were queried from the Merative
resultsA total of 73,870 patients undergoing IHR (39,591 [53.6%] O-IHR, 30,858 [41.8%] L-IHR, and 3,421 [4.6%] R-IHR) were included. As compared to O-IHR, any IHR reoperation risk at 2-years was about 42% lower with R-IHR (HR = 0.58, p = 0.002) and about 16% lower with L-IHR (HR= 0.84, p < .001). As compared to O-IHR, total expenditure for the index surgery was approximately $3,391 higher with L-IHR (p < .001) and $4,137 higher with R-IHR (p < .001). R-IHR had about $615 higher index expenditure than L-IHR (p = 0.004).
conclusionThe current study demonstrates that robotic IHR is associated with a lower risk of reoperations at 2 years after an initial repair as compared to L-IHR and O-IHR, but higher index expenditure in the outpatient setting for an economically active population.
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.