The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laparoscopic or Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy?: A Randomized Prospective Trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair can equal or surpass an established open method at an acceptable cost. DESIGN: A randomized, prospective comparison with a follow-up of 7 to 18 months (median, 10 months; planned, 5 years). SETTING: Health maintenance organization hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred patients between 20 and 70 years of age were randomized. No patient withdrew from the study after randomization. INTERVENTIONS: Transabdominal preperitoneal laparoscopic and open tension-free repairs using a polypropylene mesh. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative and discharge times, costs, recovery, and morbidity. "Return to work" was supplemented by a performance assessment using a panel of exercises. RESULTS: Operative and hospitalization times were not significantly different between the two types of repair. Patients with laparoscopic unilateral repairs returned to work faster (9 vs 17 days). At 1 week postoperatively, performance of straight-leg raises correlated well with time to return to work for patients with strenuous jobs. The laparoscopic repair was more expensive than the open approach ($3093 vs $2494). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal hernia repair can be accomplished with operative and hospitalization times and a short-term recurrence rate similar to those of an established open technique. Perioperative exercise testing may be an important adjunct to return to work in the comparison of methods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
A Prospective Comparison of Laparoscopic and Tension-Free Open Herniorrhaphy
Brooks, D. C. (1994) · Archives of Surgery · doi:10.1001/archsurg.1994.01420280031004 · Cited by 149
Cited by
International guidelines for groin hernia management
The HerniaSurge Group (2018) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x · Cited by 2,296
European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients
Simons, M. P., Aufenacker, T., Bay-Nielsen, M., Bouillot, J. L., Campanelli, G., Conze, J., de Lange, D., Fortelny, R., Heikkinen, T., Kingsnorth, A., et al. (2009) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-009-0529-7 · Cited by 1,617
Hernias: inguinal and incisional
Kingsnorth, A., & LeBlanc, K. (2003) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(03)14746-0 · Cited by 1,083
Laparoscopic techniques versus open techniques for inguinal hernia repair
McCormack, K., Scott, N., Go, P. M. N. Y. H., Ross, S. J., Grant, A., & Collaboration the EU Hernia Trialists (2003) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001785 · Cited by 809
A Review of Chronic Pain After Inguinal Herniorrhaphy
Poobalan, A. S., Bruce, J., Smith, W. C. S., King, P. M., Krukowski, Z. H., & Chambers, W. A. (2003) · The Clinical Journal of Pain · doi:10.1097/00002508-200301000-00006 · Cited by 579
Metadata
- Authors
- Payne, J. H.
- Venue
- Archives of Surgery
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1994-09-01
- Volume
- 129
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 973
- ISSN
- 0004-0010 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2059656941
- Cited by
- 254
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Laparoscopic or Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy?: A Randomized Prospective Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archsurg.1994.01420330087016
- The paper
- Payne, J. H. (1994). Laparoscopic or Open Inguinal Herniorrhaphy?: A Randomized Prospective Trial. Archives of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.1994.01420330087016
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.