The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Chronic pain after laparoscopic and open mesh repair of groin hernia
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of chronic pain or discomfort after laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal (TEP) repair and open mesh repair of groin hernia, and to assess the impact of such pain on patients' physical activity. Methods: A postal questionnaire was sent to patients who had TEP or open mesh repair of groin hernia between January 1998 and December 1999. The patients were asked about any persistent pain or discomfort in relation to the groin hernia repair and whether this pain or discomfort restricted their ability to undertake physical or sporting activity. Results: Of the 560 available patients 454 (81·1 per cent) replied. Laparoscopic TEP repair was performed in 240 patients (52·9 per cent) and open mesh repair in 214 (47·1 per cent). Of the 454 patients, 136 (30·0 per cent) reported chronic groin pain or discomfort, which was significantly more common after open repair than after laparoscopic repair (38·3 versus 22·5 per cent; P < 0·01). Chronic groin pain or discomfort restricted daily physical or sporting activity in 18·1 per cent of the patients. The patients who had open repair complained of significantly more restriction of daily physical activity than patients who underwent laparoscopic repair (walking, P < 0·05; lifting a bag of groceries, P < 0·01). Conclusion: Chronic pain or discomfort was reported by 30·0 per cent of patients after groin hernia repair and was significantly more common after open mesh repair than after laparoscopic TEP repair. It restricted physical or sporting activities in 18·1 per cent of the patients and significantly more so after open mesh repair.
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
Cited by
Catastrophizing: a predictive factor for postoperative pain
Khan, R. S., Ahmed, K., Blakeway, E., Skapinakis, P., Nihoyannopoulos, L., Macleod, K., Sevdalis, N., Ashrafian, H., Platt, M., Darzi, A., et al. (2011) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2010.02.007 · Cited by 289
Alternative clinical end points in rectal cancer—are we getting closer?
Glynne-Jones, R., Mawdsley, S., Pearce, T., & Buyse, M. (2006) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdl173 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Kumar, S., Wilson, R. G., Nixon, S. J., & Macintyre, I. M. C.
- Venue
- British Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-11
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1476-1479
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W1969330752
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.07
- 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
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.