ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Primary defect closure in minimally invasive direct inguinal hernia repair: a propensity-weighted analysis.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefit of defect closure during minimally invasive repair of direct inguinal hernias remains uncertain. Prior studies have reported conflicting findings and often lacked adequate control for confounding.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective, unilateral, laparoscopic or robotic repair of direct inguinal hernias with complete 30-day follow-up in the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry. Inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted for age, BMI, ASA class, smoking, anticoagulation, diabetes, hypertension, immunosuppressant use, prior pelvic operation, recurrent hernia, direct hernia size, and prior mesh. The primary outcome was 30-day surgical site occurrence (SSO). Secondary outcomes included 30-day readmission, reoperation, and recurrence. A prespecified robotic subgroup analysis was performed.
resultsA total of 4,209 patients were included. Closure was associated with lower SSO rate (3.6% vs 6.2%, p = 0.034) but higher 30-day cardiac readmissions (2.2% vs 0.3%, p < 0.001), driven by 3 versus 1 events, while other causes were infrequent and similar between groups. In the robotic subgroup (n = 2,171), the wound benefit lost statistical significance (SSO 3.9% vs 5.1%, p = 0.330), whereas cardiac readmissions remained elevated (2.1% vs 0.3%, p = 0.001). Closure clustered with distinct operative practices, including more frequent use of self-fixating mesh (60% vs 38%, p < 0.001), TAP blocks under direct visualization (46% vs 9.9%, p < 0.001), and shorter operative times (62% vs 51% completed in < 60 min, p = 0.001).
conclusionDirect defect closure was associated with a reduction in early wound complications and higher 30-day cardiac readmissions. Given the very small absolute number of cardiac readmissions (3 vs 1) that are likely unrelated to defect closure, these findings support selective use of direct defect closure, particularly in patients with larger medial defects or higher wound complication risk. Randomized trials with standardized operative protocols are still needed to confirm our findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42850297What 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.