The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Low Recurrence Rate After Laparoscopic (TEP) and Open (Lichtenstein) Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial With 5-Year Follow-Up
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare a laparoscopic (totally extraperitoneal patch (TEP)) and an open technique (Lichtenstein) for inguinal hernia repair regarding recurrence rate and possible risk factors for recurrence. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Laparoscopic hernia repair has been introduced as an alternative to open repair. Short-term follow-up suggests benefits for those patients operated with a laparoscopic approach compared with open techniques; ie, less postoperative pain and a shorter convalescence period. Long-term results, however, are less well known. METHODS: The study was conducted as a multicenter randomized trial with a 5-year follow-up. A total of 1512 men aged 30 to 70 years, with a primary unilateral inguinal hernia, were randomized to either TEP or Lichtenstein repair. RESULTS: Overall, 665 patients in the TEP group and 705 patients in the Lichtenstein group were evaluable. The cumulative recurrence rate was 3.5% in the TEP group and 1.2% in the Lichtenstein group (P = 0.008). Test for heterogeneity revealed significant differences between individual surgeons. The exclusion of 1 surgeon, who was responsible for 33% (7 of 21) of all recurrences in the TEP group, lowered the cumulative recurrence rate to 2.4% in this group, which was not statistically different from that of the Lichtenstein group. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence rate for both TEP and Lichtenstein repair was low. A higher cumulative recurrence rate in the TEP group was seen at 5 years. Further analysis revealed that this could be attributable to incorrect surgical technique.
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
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
Cited by
International guidelines for groin hernia management
The HerniaSurge Group (2018) · Hernia · doi:10.1007/s10029-017-1668-x · Cited by 2,296
Update of the international HerniaSurge guidelines for groin hernia management
Stabilini, C., van Veenendaal, N., Aasvang, E., Agresta, F., Aufenacker, T., Berrevoet, F., Burgmans, I., Chen, D., de Beaux, A., East, B., et al. (2023) · BJS Open · doi:10.1093/bjsopen/zrad080 · Cited by 292
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Eklund, A. S., Montgomery, A. K., Rasmussen, I. C., Sandbue, R. P., Bergkvist, L. Å., & Rudberg, C. R.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2009-01
- Volume
- 249
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 33-38
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1984944068
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.40
- 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: Low Recurrence Rate After Laparoscopic (TEP) and Open (Lichtenstein) Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial With 5-Year Follow-Up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e31819255d0
- The paper
- Eklund, A. S., Montgomery, A. K., Rasmussen, I. C., Sandbue, R. P., Bergkvist, L. Å., & Rudberg, C. R. (2009). Low Recurrence Rate After Laparoscopic (TEP) and Open (Lichtenstein) Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Multicenter Trial With 5-Year Follow-Up. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e31819255d0
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.