ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of surgical techniques for inguinal hernia repair in elderly patients: a network meta-analysis.
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
Objective: The optimal surgical technique for elderly patients (≥60 years) with inguinal hernia remains uncertain. This study compared the efficacy and safety of various techniques using network meta-analysis. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Wanfang databases were searched through February 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing inguinal hernia repair techniques in elderly patients. Outcomes included perioperative indexes and postoperative complications. Analyses were conducted using R. Results: Twenty-eight trials (3184 patients; reported mean or median age 62-76 years, predominantly male) were included. The overall risk of bias was judged low in 10 trials, with some concerns in 8 trials and high in 10 trials. The network was well-connected across multiple techniques. Laparoscopic approaches showed advantages in several perioperative outcomes. LR-TEP yielded the least bleeding (vs. OMR-CSR: SMD=-15.18, 95% CI: -23.45 to -6.90) and shortest hospital stay (SMD=-2.30, 95% CI: -3.57 to -1.03), ranking highest for both (SUCRA ≈0.84 and 0.97, respectively). LR-TAPP also reduced bleeding (SMD=-12.34, 95% CI: -24.27 to -0.41) and stay (SMD=-1.81, 95% CI: -3.30 to -0.33). LR-TEP enabled the earliest ambulation (SMD=-18.66, 95% CI: -25.61 to -11.71; SUCRA ≈0.955). Recurrence rates were similar except for OMR-Lightweight, which had a higher risk (RR = 26.16, 95% CI: 1.07-639.67). OMR-PHS had the best safety profile (RR = 0.04, 95% CI: 0.00-0.65). LR-TEP and LR-TAPP significantly reduced complications (RR = 0.28 and 0.33, respectively). IPOM provided the greatest pain relief (SMD=-2.65, 95% CI: -4.58 to -0.73). Urinary retention incidence was low, with no significant between-technique differences. Conclusions: Minimally invasive repairs, particularly LR-TEP, appear to offer favorable short-term recovery outcomes in appropriately selected elderly inguinal hernia patients, with comparable recurrence rates to open techniques. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251124772, identifier PROSPERO 2025 CRD420251124772.
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.