ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Longitudinal assessment of recurrence after open versus laparoscopic versus robotic inguinal hernia repair in 272,475 patients.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHistoric data on inguinal hernia repair recurrences have been mixed, with some reports demonstrating higher recurrences after laparoscopic (laparoscopic IHR) and robotic inguinal hernia repair (robotic IHR) as compared with open inguinal hernia repair (open IHR). We evaluated the contemporary, real-world recurrence requiring reoperation (RRR) rates among open IHR, laparoscopic IHR, and robotic IHR.
methodsThis population-based study utilized New York and Florida state databases between October 2015 and December 2021 to identify adult patients who underwent uncomplicated IHR using ICD-10 codes and categorized them into open IHR, laparoscopic IHR, or robotic IHR. RRR was defined as time to a second ipsilateral IHR.
resultsAmong 265,955 patients, 134,348 underwent open IHR, 106,425 laparoscopic IHR, and 25,182 robotic IHR. Open IHR decreased from 61.8% in 2015 to 40.0% in 2021, while laparoscopic IHR and robotic IHR increased from 36.2 and 2.0% in 2015 to 40.0 and 16.9% in 2021, respectively (all p < 0.001). In 2015, RRR rates were similar for L‑IHR and O‑IHR (1.6%) but higher for R‑IHR (3.7%); by 2021, the RRR rate after R‑IHR declined to match the others. Multilevel Cox regression analysis demonstrated that laparoscopic IHR (HR 0.5 (0.4-0.7), p < 0.001) and robotic IHR (HR 0.4 (0.2-0.9), p = 0.04) were associated with lower risk of RRR in high laparoscopic inguinal hernia case volume institutions. Older age, White race, chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, obesity, hypertension, and tobacco use were independently associated with higher RRR.
conclusionIn contemporary times, RRR rates after laparoscopic IHR and open IHR were similar. While the RRR rate after robotic IHR was higher than both open IHR and laparoscopic IHR in earlier years, it has since declined to equivalent rates in recent years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42426402What 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.