ArticleTrials2026
The safety and efficacy of low pneumoperitoneum pressure compared with standard pneumoperitoneum pressure in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study protocol design.
Article in Trials, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInguinal hernia is a common disease, and laparoscopic tension-free inguinal hernia repair has become the standard procedure for treating inguinal hernia. During surgery, carbon dioxide gas is injected into the patient's abdominal cavity to maintain a specific pneumoperitoneum pressure. Under standard pneumoperitoneum pressure (SPP), we occasionally observe that some patients are prone to subcutaneous emphysema and hypercarbia, especially elderly patients with inguinal hernias, where the occurrence is relatively high. The aim of this study was to analyse whether using lower pneumoperitoneum pressure (LPP) in laparoscopic hernia repair is safer while maintaining surgical success.
methodsThis was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study in which patients were randomly assigned to either the LPP group or the SPP group. The primary outcome measures were the results of patients' arterial blood gas analysis, including partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2), arterial oxygen partial pressure (PaO2), pH value, arterial oxygen saturation (SaO2), whole blood base excess (ABE), and standard base excess (SBE). The secondary outcome measures included heart rate, blood pressure, cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), end-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (PetCO2), airway pressure (Paw), intraoperative complications, surgical duration, anesthesia recovery time, Length of hospital stay, postoperative pain, and quality of life. The aim of this study was to analyse the differences in these indicators between the two groups of patients. DISCUSSION: Compared with laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair performed under SPP, the use of LPP in laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair is advantageous for improving patients' blood gas analysis and systemic circulatory indicators. This study demonstrated that LPP for inguinal hernia repair is safe and effective, providing evidence-based support for the selection of pneumoperitoneum pressure values.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400091218, Registered on October 23, 2024.
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.