ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparative analysis of electrocautery and scalpel incisions in inguinal hernia repair.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is uncertainty about which incision technique-electrocautery or scalpel-offers safer and more effective outcomes in inguinal hernia repair, particularly with respect to operative duration, bleeding, postoperative discomfort, and wound-related complications. Therefore, it is of interest to compare the individuals having inguinal hernia repair utilizing blade and electrocautery incisions. Two groups were formed with 64 individuals in each group; group I (allocated to the patients who underwent surgical blade incision) and group II (allocated to the patients who underwent electrocautery incision). Statistically significant disparity was found among both the groups in regard to the incision time and intra-operative blood loss with a P value of less than 0.0001. We did not find statistically noteworthy disparity among the groups in regard to the inpatient stay duration, pain after surgery, painkillers necessity and post- procedural complications with a P value of 0.06, 0.53, 0.33 and 0.45 respectively. Skin incision with electrocautery is a swift procedure with the least complications post-procedural juxtaposed to the incision with a scalpel blade. So, utilizing the electrocautery for creating skin incision is as safe as the utilization of scalpel blade in patients undergoing treatment of inguinal hernia.
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.