ArticlePediatric surgery international2026
Is external oblique aponeurosis incision necessary in pediatric hydrocelectomy? A large retrospective cohort study.
Article in Pediatric surgery international, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePediatric inguinal hydrocele repair often includes incision of the external oblique aponeurosis, although its necessity remains unclear. This study compared recurrence and operative time after repair with and without aponeurosis incision.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 758 boys who underwent open inguinal pediatric hydrocele repair between November 2021 and January 2026. The primary outcome was recurrence. A 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis was performed to reduce measured baseline imbalance.
resultsOf 758 patients, 485 underwent repair without aponeurosis incision and 273 with incision. Recurrence occurred in 8 and 6 patients, respectively (1.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.585). After matching, 231 patients were included in each group; recurrence occurred in 4 non-incision and 5 incision patients, with no significant paired difference (exact McNemar p = 1.000). Operative time remained shorter without incision in the matched cohort (25.8 ± 4.3 vs. 33.5 ± 5.9 min, p < 0.001).
conclusionIn this retrospective cohort, we did not detect a statistically significant difference in recurrence between techniques; however, the study was not designed or powered to establish non-inferiority. The non-incision approach was associated with shorter operative time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42635644What 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.