ArticleJournal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS2025
Three-Arm Registry-Based Comparison of Trans-Inguinal-Pre-Peritoneal, Laparoscopic, and Lichtenstein Techniques for Scrotal Hernia Repair.
Article in Journal of abdominal wall surgery : JAWS, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Studies on minimal invasive open preperitoneal techniques performed in scrotal hernia repair are very scarce. Methods: We conducted a comparative study based on the prospectively collected data of the "Club-Hernie." A scrotal hernia was defined as an inguinal hernia which has descended into and causes any distortion of the scrotum. Giant inguinal hernias were not included. Results: A total of 3,043 scrotal hernias repairs, performed from 01/09/2011 to 30/04/2023, met the inclusion criteria. The late results of 395 Trans-Inguinal-Pre-Peritoneal (TIPP/MOPP), compared with those of 1038 Lichtenstein and those of 1610 laparoscopic (TEP/TAPP) repairs were globally similar. At a median follow-up of 2 years, no significant difference was found between the three groups regarding the rate of identified recurrences (0.6% vs. 0.6% vs. 0.7%; p=0.9191; p=0.7435) and the prevalence of severe CPIP (0.6% vs. 0.4% vs. 0.7%; p=0.6772; p=0.7300, respectively for TIPP, Lichtenstein and TEP/TAPP). Each technique, though, showed some benefits and drawbacks. Laparoscopic repairs, used in this series in less complex patients (lower number of ASA 3-4 patients and/or patients on anticoagulants) and hernias (lower rates of L3/M3 defects), provided a better nerve preservation (nerve resection /= III) postoperative complications and a high rate of day surgery (69.9%). The hernia sac was completely resected in 64% of cases without injury of the spermatic cord nor need for a unilateral orchidectomy. Probably due to preoperative tailoring, the Lichtenstein group significantly collected many of the most complex patients (ASA3-4: 31.8%; anticoagulant therapy: 23.4%) and the most symptomatic hernias (severe preoperative pain: 17.5%). Lichtenstein was not only a default technique but also a fallback procedure: Fifteen (40.5%) of the 37 conversions occurring in laparoscopic or TIPP techniques ended up in a Lichtenstein technique. Conclusion: This study shows that TIPP is feasible, safe and effective in scrotal hernias, providing results close to those of laparoscopic techniques. Thus, TIPP appears as a valid alternative when the aim is to elect both a preperitoneal repair and a minimal invasive open route. Having the choice of effective techniques may help in tailoring the treatment of these so particular types of groin hernias.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.