Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 541

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of Conventional Anterior Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inguinal-Hernia Repair

Open access
Liem, Mike S.L., van der Graaf, Yolanda, van Steensel, Cees J., Boelhouwer, Roelof U., Clevers, Geert-Jan, Meijer, Willem S., Stassen, Laurents P.S., Vente, Johannes P., Weidema, Wibo F., Schrijvers, Augustinus J.P., van Vroonhoven, Theo J.M.V.·1997·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernias can be repaired by laparoscopic techniques, which have had better results than open surgery in several small studies. METHODS: We performed a randomized, multicenter trial in which 487 patients with inguinal hernias were treated by extraperitoneal laparoscopic repair and 507 patients were treated by conventional anterior repair. We recorded information about postoperative recovery and complications and examined the patients for recurrences one and six weeks, six months, and one and two years after surgery. RESULTS: Six patients in the open-surgery group but none in the laparoscopic-surgery group had wound abscesses (P=0.03), and the patients in the laparoscopic-surgery group had a more rapid recovery (median time to the resumption of normal daily activity, 6 vs. 10 days; time to the return to work, 14 vs. 21 days; and time to the resumption of athletic activities, 24 vs. 36 days; P<0.001 for all comparisons). With a median follow-up of 607 days, 31 patients (6 percent) in the open-surgery group had recurrences, as compared with 17 patients (3 percent) in the laparoscopic-surgery group (P=0.05). All but three of the recurrences in the latter group were within one year after surgery and were caused by surgeon-related errors. In the open-surgery group, 15 patients had recurrences during the first year, and 16 during the second year. Follow-up was complete for 97 percent of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with inguinal hernias who undergo laparoscopic repair recover more rapidly and have fewer recurrences than those who undergo open surgical 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm199705293362201

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 541

Metadata

Authors
Liem, M. S. L., van der Graaf, Y., van Steensel, C. J., Boelhouwer, R. U., Clevers, G.-J., Meijer, W. S., Stassen, L. P. S., Vente, J. P., Weidema, W. F., Schrijvers, A. J. P., & van Vroonhoven, T. J. M. V.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1997-05-29
Volume
336
Issue
22
Pages
1541-1547
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2324678407
Cited by
541
References
0
FWCI
38.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Comparison of Conventional Anterior Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inguinal-Hernia Repair. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199705293362201
The paper
Liem, M. S. L., van der Graaf, Y., van Steensel, C. J., Boelhouwer, R. U., Clevers, G.-J., Meijer, W. S., Stassen, L. P. S., Vente, J. P., Weidema, W. F., Schrijvers, A. J. P., & van Vroonhoven, T. J. M. V. (1997). Comparison of Conventional Anterior Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inguinal-Hernia Repair. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199705293362201

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.