The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Open Mesh versus Laparoscopic Mesh Repair of Inguinal Hernia
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Repair of inguinal hernias in men is a common surgical procedure, but the most effective surgical technique is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned men with inguinal hernias at 14 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers to either open mesh or laparoscopic mesh repair. The primary outcome was recurrence of hernias at two years. Secondary outcomes included complications and patient-centered outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 2164 patients who were randomly assigned to one of the two procedures, 1983 underwent an operation; two-year follow-up was completed in 1696 (85.5 percent). Recurrences were more common in the laparoscopic group (87 of 862 patients [10.1 percent]) than in the open group (41 of 834 patients [4.9 percent]; odds ratio, 2.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 3.2). The rate of complications was higher in the laparoscopic-surgery group than in the open-surgery group (39.0 percent vs. 33.4 percent; adjusted odds ratio, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.6). The laparoscopic-surgery group had less pain initially than the open-surgery group on the day of surgery (difference in mean score on a visual-analogue scale, 10.2 mm; 95 percent confidence interval, 4.8 to 15.6) and at two weeks (6.1 mm; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.7 to 10.5) and returned to normal activities one day earlier (adjusted hazard ratio for a shorter time to return to normal activities, 1.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.3). In prespecified analyses, there was a significant interaction between the surgical approach (open or laparoscopic) and the type of hernia (primary or recurrent) (P=0.012). Recurrence was significantly more common after laparoscopic repair than after open repair of primary hernias (10.1 percent vs. 4.0 percent), but rates of recurrence after repair of recurrent hernias were similar in the two groups (10.0 percent and 14.1 percent, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The open technique is superior to the laparoscopic technique for mesh repair of primary hernias.
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
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Cited by
Boutron, I., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Ravaud, P., & for the CONSORT Group* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008 · Cited by 2,292
Chronic postoperative pain: the case of inguinal herniorrhaphy
Aasvang, E., & Kehlet, H. (2005) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aei019 · Cited by 555
Karthikesalingam, A., Markar, S. R., Holt, P. J. E., & Praseedom, R. K. (2010) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.6902 · Cited by 173
Why we need confidence intervals
Altman, D. G. (2005) · World Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1007/s00268-005-7911-0 · Cited by 88
Metadata
- Authors
- Neumayer, L., Giobbie-Hurder, A., Jonasson, O., Fitzgibbons, R., Dunlop, D., Gibbs, J., Reda, D., & Henderson, W.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2004-04-29
- Volume
- 350
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 1819-1827
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2021413345
- Cited by
- 1,088
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 60.88
- 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: Open Mesh versus Laparoscopic Mesh Repair of Inguinal Hernia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa040093
- The paper
- Neumayer, L., Giobbie-Hurder, A., Jonasson, O., Fitzgibbons, R., Dunlop, D., Gibbs, J., Reda, D., & Henderson, W. (2004). Open Mesh versus Laparoscopic Mesh Repair of Inguinal Hernia. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa040093
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.
