ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Effectiveness of Pediatric Laparoscopic and Laparoscopically Assisted Inguinal Hernia Repairs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Among children, surgical procedures most often done include inguinal hernia repair. Although both laparoscopically assisted inguinal hernia repair (LAIHR) and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR) are rather common minimally invasive methods, their relative safety, efficacy, and outcomes are still questionable. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to examine the efficacy and complication profiles of LIHR and LAIHR in children derived from data from randomized controlled trials. Through March 2025, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched systematically to find randomized controlled trials comparing LIHR and LAIHR in pediatric patients. Included were studies reporting on hernia recurrence, operative duration, transient hydrocele, wound complications, and recovery outcomes. Random-effects models were used to conduct meta-analyses. Using the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) grading scheme for prognostic or risk studies, the degree of evidence and strength of suggestions were evaluated. Sixteen trials with a total of 1,402 pediatric patients were included. Pooled findings showed no statistically significant variation in hernia recurrence rates between LIHR (1.9%; 95% CI: 0-3%) and LAIHR (0.7%; 95% CI: 0-2%) (P = 0.052; I² = 29%). Likewise, no statistically significant differences were found in the rates of transient hydrocele (P = 0.1379) or wound infection (P = 0.4951). Analysis of operative time revealed extreme statistical heterogeneity (I² = 100%), precluding a meaningful pooled comparison. This indicates that operative duration is highly variable and dependent on unmeasured, center-specific factors such as surgical technique and experience, rather than representing a consistent difference between the two broad procedure categories. Both strategies showed outstanding safety profiles and low complication rates. Early recovery results and cosmetic satisfaction were somewhat more positive with LAIHR in some studies. Both LIHR and LAIHR are effective, safe, and cosmetically acceptable ways to repair pediatric inguinal hernia, with no major variances in recurrence or most complication rates. Operative time is not a distinguishing feature between the techniques but is instead highly context-dependent. LAIHR may have benefits in chosen contexts for surgical time and aesthetic results. The method chosen should fit patient's needs, surgical proficiency, and hospital's assets.
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.