ArticleHernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery2026
Parainguinal or Spigelian hernia: a clinically important distinction.
Article in Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery, 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.
- Parainguinal or spigelian hernia: a clinically important distinction. Author's Reply.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 2026Article
- Comment to: Parainguinal or Spigelian hernia: a clinically important distinction.Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery · 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
purposeParainguinal hernias (PHs) are an uncommon but under-recognised subtype of lateral abdominal wall hernia, located near the ASIS, distinct from the deep inguinal ring and at or just below the interspinous plane. They are frequently misclassified as Spigelian hernias (SHs) or inguinal hernias due to overlapping features. This study aimed to define the clinical characteristics, diagnostic accuracy, operative management, and long-term outcomes of patients with PHs compared with SHs.
methodsA retrospective cohort study of all adult patients undergoing mesh repair for PHs or SHs under the care of a single surgeon between 2002 and 2025 was undertaken. Clinical, radiological, and operative findings were analysed alongside complications and long-term outcomes. Pain outcomes were assessed using Cunningham's criteria.
resultsForty-five patients underwent surgical repair: 40 with PHs and five with SHs (41 PH and 5 SH repairs). PH patients were older than SH patients (median 72 vs. 58 years, p = 0.036). PHs were more often left-sided (63%) and commonly misdiagnosed preoperatively as SHs (51%). Clinical diagnosis of PHs showed moderate sensitivity (56%) but high positive predictive value (96%), while CT and ultrasound performed poorly (sensitivities 6-15%). SHs were more reliably identified clinically (80%) but had low predictive values. PHs were repaired predominantly with open or laparoscopy-assisted mesh repair (95%), while SHs were repaired laparoscopically in most cases (80%). Complications were rare (seroma 4%, TIA 2%). At a median follow-up of 8.8 years (IQR 2.4-12.5), 87% of patients reported no pain, 13% had mild symptoms, and there were two recurrences (4%).
conclusionPHs are more common than SHs, and recognition as a separate subtype is warranted to improve diagnostic accuracy and guide tailored management. In this series, open extraperitoneal mesh repair of PHs was associated with low complication rates, and excellent long-term patient outcomes.
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.