ArticleBMC surgery2026
Clinical outcomes of open versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair in Palestine: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInguinal hernia repair is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, accounting for approximately 75% of abdominal wall hernias, and predominantly occurring in males. Although it is a common procedure with generally favourable outcomes, the postoperative outcomes, such as chronic pain, recurrence, and surgical complications, remain important concerns. The aim of this study was to compare short-term postoperative outcomes and complications between open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair.
methodA retrospective cohort study was conducted to compare the outcomes between open vs. laparoscopic inguinal hernia mesh repair. All patients who underwent inguinal hernia mesh repair in 3 hospitals from 2017 to 2025 were collected. Patients were divided into groups based on surgical technique (open repair vs. laparoscopic repair). Demographic data, operative time, length of hospital stay, postoperative outcomes including surgical complications (hematoma, seroma, surgical site infection, hydrocele, recurrence), and general postoperative complications (urinary retention and postoperative nausea/vomiting) were extracted and analysed. A P-value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 609 patients underwent inguinal hernia repair with mesh. Open repair was more prevalent (77.2%). Reducible and uncomplicated hernias were significantly associated with laparoscopic repair (p < 0.001, p = 0.006), while irreducible and strangulated hernias were predominantly managed with open surgery. Patients undergoing laparoscopic repair were younger (median 51.5 vs. 55 years, p = 0.001) and had shorter operative duration (median 101.5 vs. 113 min, p = 0.001). Urinary retention occurred more frequently after open repair (5.5% vs. 0.7%, p = 0.015), whereas postoperative nausea and vomiting were more common following laparoscopy (2.2% vs. 0.2%, p = 0.039). Overall postoperative complications were low and comparable between the two approaches (12.6% vs. 14.4%, p = 0.572), and early documented recurrence during short-term follow-up was uncommon and did not differ significantly between groups; however, the follow-up duration was insufficient to reliably assess true recurrence rates. (1.1% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.709).
conclusionBoth open and laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair demonstrated favourable safety profiles in this cohort and were associated with low rates of short-term postoperative complications. However, the short follow-up duration limits assessment of long-term outcomes such as recurrence, chronic postoperative pain, and mesh-related complications.
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.