The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Conventional Anterior Surgery and Laparoscopic Surgery for Inguinal-Hernia Repair
Open accessAbstract
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.
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
What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials
Hollis, S., & Campbell, F. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7211.670 · Cited by 2,160
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
- 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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.