ArticleTurkish journal of surgery2026
Surgeons' preferences in the management of recurrence after laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A nationwide survey.
Article in Turkish journal of surgery, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate contemporary surgical approaches and decision-making patterns of general surgeons in the management of recurrent inguinal hernia following laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair (LIHR), with particular emphasis on recurrence timing, surgeon experience, and annual laparoscopic case volume. Material and Methods: The questionnaire consisted of 26 items, including both multiple-choice and short-answer questions, and was designed to assess demographic characteristics, surgical experience, preferred surgical techniques, preoperative evaluation strategies, and management approaches for recurrent inguinal hernia following LIHR. Recurrences were classified as early (≤2 years) or late (>2 years) based on the postoperative time interval. Results: A total of 179 surgeons participated in the survey. Most respondents were male and had ≤10 years of surgical experience. Surgeons with higher annual laparoscopic hernia repair volumes were significantly more likely to prefer re-laparoscopic posterior approaches for both early and late recurrences, whereas surgeons with lower case volumes predominantly favored open anterior repair techniques (p<0.05). Surgical preferences also varied in female patients and according to the initial repair technique (transabdominal preperitoneal or total extraperitoneal). Nearly two-thirds of participants reported insufficient or only partially sufficient training in recurrent hernia repair, while the majority strongly agreed on the need for national or international clinical guidelines. Conclusion: Surgeon experience and annual laparoscopic case volume significantly influence the management of recurrent inguinal hernia following LIHR. As laparoscopic expertise increases, re-laparoscopic approaches are more frequently adopted. These findings highlight the need for standardized training programs and evidence-based guidelines to optimize the management of recurrent inguinal hernia after laparoscopic repair.
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.