ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Laparoscopic vs. open inguinal hernia repair in Central Asia: a systematic review of technological readiness and safety frameworks.
Review in Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Inguinal hernia repair is the most frequently performed general surgical procedure worldwide. While the transition from open to laparoscopic techniques (TAPP/TEP) is a success story in high-income nations, developing healthcare systems in Central Asia face a complex reality where the adoption of technology often outpaces surgical training. Objectives: We aimed to systematically review the evidence on hernia repair outcomes, specifically interrogating the trade-off between short-term recurrence and long-term quality of life (chronic pain). Additionally, we sought to evaluate the critical role of surgeon "technological readiness" in settings with limited resources. Methods: We conducted a systematic review in strict adherence to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Searching PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library (2004-2026), we identified studies comparing laparoscopic vs. open repair and assessing surgical education in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Eligibility was defined via the PICOS framework, focusing on adult patients, recurrence/pain outcomes, and safety profiles in RCTs and observational studies. Results: A total of 34 studies were synthesized. The evidence confirms that while laparoscopic repair significantly reduces the risk of chronic pain compared to the Lichtenstein technique, this benefit is strictly contingent upon high surgical volume (>60 procedures per surgeon). Crucially, long-term registry data indicate that 42.5% of recurrences appear more than 10 years post-surgery a timeframe often ignored in short-term safety assessments. In the LMIC context, open repair remains a robust, cost-effective standard where simulation-based training is absent. Conclusion: While laparoscopic repair can be safely implemented in LMICs with dedicated training, the direct transposition of international guidelines without local adaptation poses safety risks. We propose a "Safety-First" Value-Based Decision Framework, emphasizing that context-sensitive implementation and institutional readiness must take precedence over technical novelty to ensure patient value.
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.